^^^^^^                     '^tH^W^^^ 

^HH[ 

t 

^^^^P^R%^ 

0  "'"- 

^KJiilii^K ' 

r.-'-5^r^ 

1/ 

jSi 

^^^^^^^^. 

W^% 

flF"'^'  • 

* 

H^^^^^^Hu.  ■                     ^^^'QBwB^SSESSI 

mms^^mm 

T> 

a> 

a 

5 

5 

>. 

"O 

OS 

>-) 

0) 

j: 

■>-> 

, — 

■w 

•Q 

.<« 

■«l- 

cS 

M 

"—' 

•o 

-o 

4> 

c 

W) 

CS 

< 

^ 

00 

G 

•^ 

O 

T3 

OJ 

>. 

M 

(X4 

< 

>. 

_^ 

Ii 

.■^» 

M 

S 

W 

C 

V 

o 

-♦-' 

-*-» 

w 

-*-» 

•  f^ 

>>oo 

Uk 

>H 

V 

IV 

c 
c 

w 

< 

to 

ta 

■«-> 

cS 

w. 

•♦-» 

ii 

O 

Ci, 

V 

3 

3 

O 

Q 

<u 

X 

H 

Note 

upon 

The  '^Dark  Lady"  Series 

of 

Shakspeare's  Sonnets 

By 

John    R.  Strong 


Sith  yet  there  is  a  credence  in  my  heart, 
An  esperance  so  obstinately  strong, 
That  doth  invert  the  attest  of  eyes  and  ears; 
As  if  those  organs  had  deceptious  functions. 
Created  only  to  calumniate. 

Troilus  and  Cressida,  V,  it,  120. 


Illustrated 


G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons 

New  York  and  London 

(Tbe   Iknichcrbocfter    press 

1921 


Copyright,  192  i 

BY 

JOHN   R.  STRONG 


Printed  in  the  United  Stales  of  America 


CONTENTS 

The  Publication  of  the  Sonnets 

Mary  Fytton 

The  Result  to  Shakspeare 

The  Arbury  Portraits 

Miscellaneous  Points 

The  Fytton  Letters  . 


PAGE 

3 

7 

48 

67 
159 

182 


m 


487292 


ILLUSTRATIONS 

FACING  PAGE 

The  Double  Portrait:  Anne  Fytton,  {Left) 
Aged  i8,  and  {Right)  the  Lady  Claimed  as 
Her  Sister,  Mary  Fytton,  Aged  14 

Frontispiece 

The  Statues  of  Anne  {Left)  and  Mary  Fytton 
{Right)  in  the  Church  of  St.  James,  at 
Gawsworth 68 

Portrait  in  Court  Dress,  Claimed  to  be 
OF  Mary  Fytton      .....      76 


NOTE  UPON 

SHAKSPEARE'S  SONNETS 
CXXVII-CLII 


THE  PUBLICATION  OF  THE  SONNETS 

The  leading  question  as  to  Shakspeare's  sonnets 
to  the  "Dark  Lady  "  is  the  question  of  their  history, 
for  it  necessarily  involves  and  is  a  key  to  most  of  the 
other  questions  which  arise  in  reading  the  sonnets, 
and,  besides,  on  its  answer  many  questions  of 
wider  interest  in  Shakspeare's  life  and  dramatic 
work  may  perhaps  depend.  The  object  of  this  Note 
is  to  review  the  most  probable  theory  of  the  history 
of  these  sonnets,  and  to  see  how  far  it  can  bring 
us  toward  any  firm  knowledge  as  to  this  striking 
incident  in  the  poet's  career. 

It  is  not  likely  that  the  poet  intended  that  these 
sonnets  should  be  made  public;  that  two  of  the 
twenty-five  or  twenty-six  sonnets  (CXXXVIII, 
CXLIV)  of  the  "Dark  Lady  "  series  were  published 
in  The  Passionate  Pilgrimini^gg  should  be  ascribed, 
of  course,  to  accident.  The  two  straying  sonnets 
were  perhaps  mislaid,  perhaps  misappropriated 
draughts,  not  only  because  they  differed  materially 
from  the  ten-years-later  text  of  the  general  Quarto 
of  the  sonnets,  but  also  because  the  three  other 

3 


4  ^ijs'fes^pcarc'g  ^onmti 

Shakspearean  pieces  pirated  with  them  not  only 
differed  considerably  from  their  standard  text,  but 
were  pirated  and  published  in  the  year  after  that 
standard  text  had  appeared  in  the  Quarto  of  Love's 
Labour's  Lost  of  1598.  Shakspeare's  offense  at  the 
publication  of  The  Passionate  Pilgrim,  in  which 
the  two  strayed  sketches,  or  early  forms,  from  the 
"Dark  Lady"  series  appeared,  is  mentioned  by 
Thomas  Heywood,  in  his  Apology  for  Actors,  in 
1612,  but  just  a  little  equivocally,  as  if  intending 
by  coupling  Shakspeare's  resentment  with  his  own 
resentment  at  a  piracy  committed  against  himself 
in  the  third  edition  of  The  Passionate  Pilgrim,  pub- 
lished also  in  161 2,  to  convey  the  impression  to  the 
reader  that  Shakspeare's  annoyance  was  at  that 
edition  particularly.  His  words  are,  and  the  great 
respect  shown  in  them  for  Shakspeare — it  was  then 
only  four  years  before  the  dramatist's  decease — 
should  be  especially  noticed : 

Here,  likewise,  I  must  necessarily  insert  a  manifest 
injury  done  to  me  in  that  worke  [his  "  Troia  Brittan- 
ica,"  i6op],  by  taking  the  two  epistles  of  Paris  to 
Helen,  and  Helen  to  Paris,  and  printing  them  in  a 
lesse  volume,  [the  third  edition  of  "The  Passionate 
Pilgrim,''  16 12],  under  the  name  of  another  [Shak- 
speare], which  may  put  the  world  in  opinion  I  might 
steale  them  from  him  [Shakspeare],  and  hee,  to  doe 
himselfe  right,  hath  since  published  them  in  his  owne 


name:  but,  as  I  must  acknowledge  my  lines  not  worthy 
his  [Shakspeare's]  patronage  under  whom  he  [the 
publisher,  Jaggard]  hath  publisht  them,  so  the  author 
I  know  much  offended  with  M.  Jaggard  (that  alto- 
gether unknowne  to  him)  presumed  to  make  so  bold 
with  his  name. 


Among  the  numerous  piracies  of  Shakspeare's 
work  and  misuses  of  his  name,  this  is  the  single 
record  of  his  notice  of  any  of  them,  and  no  particu- 
lar ground  for  offense  appears  in  this  instance  of 
a  common  indifference  to  literary  rights,  excepting 
the  publication  of  these  unquestionably  private 
sonnets,  and  on  the  first  two  pages  of  the  Mis- 
cellany. There  is  sufficient  reason  in  the  sonnets 
themselves  to  account  for  his  annoyance  at  this 
publication,  while  there  is  nothing  whatever  in  the 
book  besides,  we  may  say  with  confidence,  at  which 
he  could  have  been  so  "much  offended"  by  it. 
What  else  was  there  in  it  which  could  cause  an 
author  of  his  experience  in  plagiarism  to  pay  any 
attention  to  it,  except  these  two  sonnets?  His 
annoyance  must  have  occurred,  however,  before 
the  edition  of  1612.  Shakspeare,  in  161 2,  was  not 
at  a  time  of  life  when  he  would  much  trouble  him- 
self about  any  such  pubHcation,  and  besides,  no 
appearance  of  the  sonnets  could,  at  that  time,  have 
30  much  annoye(3  him,  as  the  Quarto  of  all  th§ 


6  ^i)afes!peare*£S  ^onntii 

sonnets  had  been  published  three  years  before,  in 
1609,  including  the  two  in  question.  Certainly, 
the  poet  could  have  cared  nothing  about  the  ad- 
dition to  Jaggard's  Miscellany  of  Heywood's  work, 
the  Paris-Helen  letters,  an  idle  work  added  to 
others  which  were  worse.  His  displeasure  there- 
fore, if  it  was  expressed  at  all  by  him  in  1612,  and 
if  Heywood's  report  of  it  was  not  merely  an  appli- 
cation to  the  moment  of  words  which  he  had  heard, 
or  heard  of,  long  before,  could  not  have  been  more 
than  a  mere  allusion  to  a  past  vexation,  a  vexation 
felt  at  the  first  edition  of  The  Passionate  Pilgrim 
in  1599,  and  again  at  the  second  edition,  for  their 
publication  of  these  most  personal  and  private 
sonnets.  The  closeness  with  which  Shakspeare's 
sonnets  were  kept  to  his  friends  is  remarkable, 
especially  when  their  literary  merit  and  personal 
interest  are  considered ;  none  of  those  in  the  Quarto 
of  1609  appeared  earlier  in  any  publication,  except 
the  two  printed  in  The  Passionate  Pilgrim.  Son- 
net CXLIV,  besides  its  intimate  character,  con- 
tains introspective  elements,  in  an  unusual  imagery 
and  in  a  noteworthy  disclosure  of  spiritual  conflict, 
the  unscrupulous  publication  of  which  he  might 
regard  as  an  infraction  of  all  literary  comity  and 
good  will.  On  the  other  sonnet  it  is  unnecessary  to 
remark,  save  that  it  appears  to  give  a  slight  indi- 


cation  of  who  the  lady  was.  The  time  of  publica- 
tion may  perhaps  have  coincided,  as  will  be  seen 
in  the  course  of  this  Note,  with  his  anxiety  and 
distress  in  respect  to  the  lady  involved.  The  title 
of  the  book,  and  the  ascription  of  the  book  to  him 
as  its  author,  would,  under  the  circumstances, 
probably  not  diminish  his  annoyance.  The  belief 
then  appears  to  be  not  without  an  apparent 
foundation,  through  Heywood's  evidence  as  to 
Shakspeare's  displeasure,  as  well  as  through  the 
intrinsic  probability  arising  from  the  character  of 
the  sonnets,  and,  of  course,  through  Shakspeare's 
practice,  who  seldom  published  at  all,  that  the 
sonnets  of  the  "Dark  Lady"  series  would  not  have 
been  given  to  publication  by  their  author. 


MARY  FYTTON 

The  first  sonnet  in  the  series,  which  is  a  singu- 
larly beautiful  one,  is  almost  certainly  founded 
upon  the  following  passage  in  Love's  Labour's  Lost: 

O,  if  in  black  my  lady's  brows  be  decked, 
It  mourns  that  painting  and  usurping  hair 


8  ^f)afe£;peare'£f  ^onnetjf 

Should  ravish  doters  with  a  false  aspect; 

And  therefore  is  she  born  to  make  black  fair. 
Her  favour  turns  the  fashion  of  the  days, 

For  native  blood  is  counted  painting  now; 
And  therefore  red,  that  would  avoid  dispraise, 

Paints  itself  black,  to  imitate  her  brow. 

Love's  Labour's  Lost,  IV,  Hi,  258. 

The  later,  or  more  probably  coincident,  sonnet 
is: 

In  the  old  age  black  was  not  counted  fair, 
Or  if  it  were,  it  bore  not  beauty's  name; 
But  now  is  black  beauty's  successive  heir, 
And  beauty  slandered  with  a  bastard  shame: 
For  since  each  hand  hath  put  on  nature's  power, 
Fairing  the  foul  with  art's  false  borrowed  face. 
Sweet  beauty  hath  no  name,  no  holy  bower, 
But  is  profaned,  if  not  lives  in  disgrace. 
Therefore  my  mistress'  eyes  are  raven  black. 
Her  eyes  so  suited,  and  they  mourners  seem 
At  such  who,  not  born  fair,  no  beauty  lack, 
Slandering  creation  with  a  false  esteem. 

Yet  so  they  mourn,  becoming  of  their  woe, 
That  every  tongue  says  beauty  should  look  so. 

Sonnet  CXXVIL 

The  argument  of  the  sonnet  appears  to  be  that 
fairness  of  complexion  is  shamed  by  the  habit  of 
painting  plain  faces  fair,  and  that  dark  beauty, 
therefore,  becoming  the  successor  in  esteem  of  fair- 
ness of  face,  seems  to  mourn  at  the  imitators  of  fair 


complexion.  This  is  also  the  argument  of  the 
passage  from  the  play,  maintained  through  the 
sonnet  notwithstanding  the  changes  made  in  re- 
writing. Each  is  based  on  the  contrast  between 
black  and  fair,  and  each  gives  the  same  reason  for 
advancing  the  claims  of  dark  beauty,  that  fair 
beauty  is  discredited.  Neither,  notwithstanding 
its  praise  of  dark  beauty,  contains  an  expression  of 
preference  for  dark  beauty  over  fair.  In  the  word 
mourn,  the  keynote  is  struck  of  the  description  of 
the  lady  in  each,  and  the  word  in  Sonnet  CXXXII 
is  used  still  oftener.  Sonnet  CXXVII  does  not 
include  the  last,  extreme  statement  of  the  passage, 
that  fair  faces  made  themselves  darker  to  follow 
the  newer  fashion,  that  compliment,  allowed  by  the 
speaker's  enthusiasm,  being  perhaps  replaced,  with 
less  extravagance,  by  the  fine  couplet  of  the  sonnet. 
In  line  ii  of  the  sonnet  are  the  words  "beauty 
lack,"  which  occur  in  the  play  a  few  lines  before 
the  passage  cited.  Rosaline's  eyes — the  passage  is 
a  part  of  a  description  of  Rosaline — are  compli- 
mented at  nearly  the  same  point  in  the  play,  and 
again,  earlier  in  the  scene,  at  lines  lo  and  243,  while 
the  eyes  of  the  lady  of  the  sonnet  are  also  especially 
referred  to,  and  again  in  CXXXII,  CXXXIX, 
CXLIX,  and  in  other  sonnets. 

The  conclusion  seems  irresistible,  when  the  son- 


10  ^h^kiptaxt'i  bonnets! 

net  and  the  passage  are  read  together,  the  argu- 
ments and  their  treatment  being  essentially  the 
same,  that  Shakspeare  wrote  the  sonnet  from,  or  at 
the  same  time  with,  the  passage,  and  it  is  certain 
that  he  addressed  the  sonnet  to  a  lady  whom  he 
could  describe  in  the  same  terms  as  those  which  are 
used  in  the  play.  There  can  be  no  reason  to  hesi- 
tate as  to  the  substantial  identity  of  the  sonnet  and 
the  passage,  nor  as  to  the  resemblance  of  the  ladies 
mentioned,  and  there  is  substantial  reason,  there- 
fore, for  the  inquiry  whether  there  is  any  further 
connection  between  the  sonnet  and  the  play.  We 
may  then  ask:  Was  the  passage  in  the  play  de- 
scriptive, as  was  the  sonnet,  of  a  particular  person? 
And,  if  that  appears  to  be  maintainable,  or  prob- 
able, or  at  least  possible,  we  may  also  ask:  Were 
the  two  persons  described  the  same  lady? 

Love's  Labour's  Lost  was  published  in  1598  as 
newly  revised,  and  as  it  had  been  performed  at  the 
Court  in  the  preceding  Christmas  season.  The 
character  of  Rosaline  appears  in  the  play  as  dis- 
tinctly as  if  it  were  a  copy  from  some  lady  who 
was  well  known  to  the  poet,  and  shows  a  personal 
touch  in  the  portraiture.  It  differs  from  those  of 
the  other  ladies  in  the  play,  the  Princess  of  France, 
Maria  and  Katherine,  in  that  it  is  less  of  an  ab- 
stract idea,  or  of  a  stage  conception,  and  more  of 


^fiafes!pcare'£{  bonnets!  ii 

a  complex,  yet  single,  individuality,  differing  from 
those  ladies  more  than  they  differ  from  each  other, 
and  seeming  rather  like  a  pen-portrait  of  a  living 
original  than  a  creation  of  fancy.  The  personal 
quality  in  her  lines  seems  as  if  it  were  exactly  that 
which  comes  from  the  representation  on  the  stage 
of  some  one  whose  personal  character  is  known  to 
the  playwright.  There  are  also  in  her  delineation 
incidents  which  seem  to  spring  from  such  a  know- 
ledge by  the  poet.  Her  vanquishing  Katherine  in 
two  skirmishes,  once  about  her  character,  and 
again  over  her  dark  beauty,  much  strengthens  the 
theory  that  a  private  history  is  shadowed  in  the 
play,  as,  of  course,  is  some  general  history  (V, 
ii,  19,  42).  Her  characteristic  "It  is  not  so,"  is 
repeated  as  though  the  poet  had  heard  the  words, 
and  remembered  them  as  a  type  of  her  rapid  com- 
prehension. (V,  ii,  188,  364,  426.)  Very  marked 
is  the  scene  in  which  he  places  her  in  the  chair  of 
royalty,  to  receive  the  Russian  visitors,  and  her 
words,  while  so  seated,  seem  echoes  of  a  known 
voice  rather  than  the  phrases  of  his  imagination 
only.  (V,  ii,  174.)  Nowhere,  in  all  Shakspeare's 
characterizations  of  ladies,  is  there  another  such 
presentation  of  womanly  alertness  of  mind,  coupled 
with  an  attractive  despotism,  unless  in  his  later 
portrait  of  Cleopatra,  and  even  that  is  not  so 


12  ^fjafejfpcarc's;  ^onnetjJ 

simply  and  directly  the  life  itself.  The  poet  seems 
also,  perhaps,  though  this  depends  even  more 
upon  a  reader's  interpretation,  to  have  attributed 
his  own  style  in  writing  to  the  talk  of  Rosaline's 
lover,  in  the  line: 

So  sweet  and  voluble  is  his  discourse. 

Love's  Labour's  Lost,  II,  i,  y6. 

Such  unsubstantial  appeals  to  the  imagination 
only  as  the  preceding  cannot  carry  proof,  but  they 
may  go  so  far,  as  in  this  case,  which  is  perhaps 
enforced  a  little  beyond  strict  warrant,  as  to  show 
that  there  is  reason  for  an  interesting  speculation, 
and  a  possibility  worth  considering,  that  there  was 
a  living  original  for  Rosaline.  With  a  basis,  then, 
for  imagining  the  sonnet  to  have  had  a  connection 
of  some  kind  with  the  revision  of  the  play,  and 
some  little  ground  for  thinking  that  Rosaline  re- 
presented some  one  living,  as  must  have  the  sonnet, 
and  further,  it  being  certain  that  the  two  repre- 
sentations of  women  are  of  persons  of  much  the 
same  appearance  and — and  this  is  the  principal 
coincidence — of  questioned  character,  and  then, 
there  being  a  very  possible  coincidence  in  time 
between  the  revision  of  the  play  in  1597  and  the 
writing  of  the  sonnet,  which  was  certainly  earlier 
than  1599 — that  is,  before  the  publication  of  the 


two  later  sonnets  of  the  series  in  The  Passionate 
Pilgrim  in  1599,  the  Hkeness  of  the  sonnet  to  the 
passage  from  the  play  in  itself  suggesting  a  like 
time  of  composition— it  seems  to  be  a  possible 
inference  that  the  two  indistinct  and  shadowy 
ladies  represented  in  the  play  and  in  the  sonnet 
may  have  been  the  same  person.  The  remarkable 
speech  of  ardent  homage  to  Rosaline,  of  which  the 
passage  cited  is  a  part,  and  the  comments  upon  it 
of  a  rather  exceptional  vivacity,  should  belong  to 
the  revision,  and  not  to  the  much-too-early  first 
draught  of  the  play,  which  partly  remains  here 
and  there  in  the  text ;  a  comparison  of  this  descrip- 
tion of  Rosaline  with  the  clearly  earlier  parts  of 
the  play  will  indicate  that  it  belongs  to  the  revision 
beyond  any  doubt.  (IV,  iii,  221 ;  and  compare  the 
earlier  I,  i,  i  et  seq. ;  I,  i,  100,  et  seq.;  I,  i,  200,  et 
seq.) 

The  similarity  between  the  passage  from  the 
play  and  the  sonnet,  and  the  likeness  in  person 
and  character  of  the  ladies  described,  and  also  the 
possibility  or  probability  of  an  identical  time  of 
writing  for  the  revision  of  the  play  and  the  sonnet, 
do  not  constitute  direct  proof  that  they  refer  to 
the  same  person,  still  less  that  they  both  refer  to 
a  living  person,  but  this  result  is  less  clear  if  this 
evidence  is  read  with  the  indirect  evidence  as  to 


i4  ^fiaktiptaxe'^  ^onntti 

the  possible  or  probable  origin  of  both  the  sonnet 
and  the  play.  While  not  sufficient  for  proof,  there 
is  in  these  coincidences  of  text  and  time  and 
personal  description  enough  to  give  a  definite, 
although  a  still  imperfect  support  to  a  theory  of  a 
double  portraiture  by  the  poet,  in  the  sonnet  and 
in  Love's  Labour's  Lost,  of  the  same  lady. 

An  explanation  of  these  remarkable  coincidences 
of  character  and  complexion,  that  the  resemblance 
of  the  sonnet  to  the  play  arose  from  a  common  por- 
traiture of  the  much-discussed  Mary  Fytton,  is  one 
for  which  the  evidence  is  a  tissue  of  probabilities, 
there  being  no  certainty  for  or  against  the  sugges- 
tion. The  young  lady  came  to  the  Court  in  or  near 
1595  as  one  among  the  Maids  of  Honour  to  Queen 
Elizabeth,  and  at  the  outset  of  1601,  and  a  little 
over  three  years  after  the  performance  of  Love's 
Labour's  Lost  at  the  Court,  it  was  known  that  she 
had  been  misled  in  the  preceding  year  by  the  eldest 
son  of  the  Earl  of  Pembroke,  Lord  Herbert,  and 
she  had  his  refusal  to  marry  her,  a  positive  refusal, 
he  receiving  a  term  of  imprisonment  and  the 
Queen's  lasting  displeasure.  She  therefore  was  at 
the  Court  in  1597,  the  year  of  Love's  Labour's 
Lost,  then  nineteen  years  old,  and  certainly  one  of 
the  leaders,  or  of  the  prospective  leaders,  among 
the  Maids  of  Honor;  she  might  then  have  been 


sketched  among  the  ladies  of  the  Court  of  the 
Princess  of  France  by  Shakspeare.  RosaUne's 
character  in  the  play  is  sketched  as  questionable, 
notwithstanding  her  brightness  of  intellect,  thus 
resembling  the  character  of  Mary  Fytton.  (Ill, 
i,  200;  IV,  iii,  3;  V,  ii,  20.)  It  will  be  seen  in  the 
first  letter  introduced  towards  the  end  of  this 
Note  from  the  correspondence  of  Sir  William 
Knollys,  a  letter  written  early  in  1598,  that  Mary 
Fytton's  reputation  at  the  Court  was,  at  that  time 
probably  much  that  which  is  described  as  Rosa- 
line's in  the  revision  of  the  play  in  1597,  and  also 
that  which  is  ascribed  in  the  sonnets  to  the  ' '  Dark 
Lady. ' '  This  is  not  so  with  the  other  attendants  on 
the  Princess  of  France,  and  as  the  imputation  is 
unnecessary  for  the  purposes  of  the  play,  an  intru- 
sion upon  its  natural  order,  and  wholly  exceptional 
among  Shakspeare's  heroines,  it  is  a  point  worth 
much  attention.  Doubtless  he  intended  to  draw  a 
"light"  attendant  on,  or  Maid  of  Honor  of,  the 
Princess  of  France,  but  that  he  should  have  done 
so  is  altogether  unusual  in  his  plays,  and  raises  a 
question  as  to  his  motive.  The  balance  of  evi- 
dence inclines,  reviewing  what  little  can  now  be 
ascertained  of  this  almost  forgotten  chapter  in 
Elizabethan  Court  history,  to  the  theory  that  this 
Maid  of  Honor  was  the  "Dark  Lady,"  the  proba- 


1 6  ^t)ak£ipeare'£(  ^onnetsi 

bilities  inclining  to  that  effect  proceeding  from  her 
situation  at  Court  and  her  later  life,  the  comparison 
of  dates,  the  element  of  evidence  in  Love's  Labour's 
Lost,  and  some  words  of  the  sonnets,  of  AlVs  Well 
that  Ends  Well,  of  Hamlet,  and  of  Measure  for 
Measure,  while  the  unconvincing  nature  of  con- 
siderations which  have  been  thought  to  counter- 
balance these  probabilities  is  possibly  more  or  less 
demonstrable.  It  may  interest  the  reader  to  trace 
her  career,  and  judge  of  her  character,  in  some  detail. 

Mary  Fytton's  prominence  in  the  Court  circle 
(we  can  still  see  that  the  young  Earl  of  Rutland  in 
1598  sent  his  portrait  by  Robert  Peake  to  her,  ac- 
cording to  the  Duke  of  Rutland's  MSS.,  vol.  IV,  p. 
418,  Historical  MSS.  Com.,  and  verses  seem  to  have 
been  written  to  her),  her  favour  with  the  Queen, 
and  her  quickness  of  wit,  in  certainly  one  instance, 
in  replying  to  the  Queen  "Affection,"  when  asked 
who  she  was  as  a  Muse,  resemble  the  representation 
of  Rosaline  as  an  attendant  upon  the  Princess  of 
France,  and  if  Rosaline  had  a  relation  to  the 
"Dark  Lady"  of  the  sonnets,  resemble  that  misty 
lady  also.  These  elements  of  prominence,  near- 
ness to  the  Queen,  and  readiness  in  reply,  appear  in 
a  cotemporary  series  of  letters  describing  a  Masque 
at  Court  on  June  16,  1600,  at  the  marriage  of  a 


Maid  of  Honor,  Mistress  Anne  Russell,  a  brilliant 
and  triumphant  scene  for  Mary  Fytton  at  first, 
and  close  on  the  time  of  her  fatal  misstep.  The 
writer  of  the  letters  was  Mr.  Rowland  Whyte, 
news-gatherer  and  Court  representative  for  Lord 
Herbert's  maternal  uncle,  Sir  Robert  Sidney,  who 
was  a  brother  of  the  deceased  Sir  PhiUp  Sidney; 
Sir  Robert  was  then  absent  from  England  as  Lord 
Governor  of  Flushing.  The  letters  appear  in  The 
Sidney  Papers,  transcribed  from  original  letters  at 
Penshurst,  and  as  they  present  an  interesting  picture 
of  the  time,  we  will  quote  them  somewhat  freely : 

The  marriage  between  the  other  Lord  Harbert 
[This  Lord  Herbert  was  the  Earl  of  Worcester's  son, 
not  the  Earl  of  Pembroke's],  and  Mrs.  Anne  Russell, 
is  at  a  Stay,  till  yt  please  her  Majestie  to  apoint  a  Day. 
.  .  .  The  Feast  wilbe  in  Blackfriers,  my  Lady 
Russell  making  exceeding  preparacions  for  yt. 

Baynard's  Castell,  May  i6,  1600. 

Mrs.  Anne  Russell  went  from  Court  upon  Monday 
last,  with  18  Coaches,  the  like  hath  not  bene  seen 
amongest  the  Maydes.  The  Queen  in  publiq,  used  of 
her  as  gracious  Speaches,  as  have  bene  hard  of  any, 
and  comanded  all  the  Mayds  to  accompany  her  to 
London ;  soe  did  all  the  Lords  of  the  Court.  Her  Moth- 
er brought  a  great  Nomber  of  Strangers  to  Court; 
all  went  in  a  Troope  away.  The  Marriage  wilbe  upon 
Monday  next,  her  Majestie  wilbe  there,  as  it  is  hoped. 

Baynard's  Castell,  June  11,  1600. 


1 8  ^fjafeJSpeare'si  ^onntti 

Her  Majesty  is  in  very  good  Health,  and  purposes 
to  honor  Mrs.  Anne  Russell's  Marriage  with  her 
Presence.  .  .  .  There  is  to  be  a  memorable  Maske 
of  8  Ladies;  they  have  a  straunge  Dawnce  newly  in- 
vented; their  attire  is  this:  Each  hath  a  Skirt  of 
Cloth  of  Silver,  a  rich  Wastcoat  wrought  with  Silkes, 
and  Gold  and  Silver,  a  Mantell  of  Carnacion  Taffete 
cast  under  the  Arme,  and  there  Haire  loose  about  their 
Shoulders,  curiously  knotted  and  interlaced.  These 
are  the  Maskers.  My  Lady  Doritye,  Mrs.  Fitton,  Mrs. 
Carey,  Mrs.  Onslow,  Mrs.  Southwell,  Mrs.  Bes.  Rus- 
sell, Mrs.  Darcy,  and  my  Lady  Blanche  Somersett. 
These  8  dawnce  to  the  Musiq  Apollo  bringes,  and  there 
is  a  fine  Speach  that  makes  mention  of  a  Ninth  [no 
doubt,  the  bride],  much  to  her  Honor  and  Praise. 
The  preparacion  for  this  Feast  is  sumptuous  and  great, 
but  it  is  feared,  that  the  Howse  in  Blackfriars  wilbe  to 
litle  for  such  a  Company. 

Greenwich,  June  14,  1600. 

This  day  senight  her  Majestic  was  at  Blackfriars, 
to  grace  the  Marriage  of  the  Lord  Harbert  and  his 
Wiffe.  The  Bride  mett  the  Queen  at  the  Waterside, 
where  my  Lord  Cobham  had  provided  a  Lectica,  made 
like  half  a  Litter,  wherein  she  was  carried  to  my  Lady 
Russel's  by  6  Knights.  Her  Majestie  dined  there,  and, 
at  Night,  went  thorough  Dr.  Puddin's  Howse  (who 
gave  the  Queen  a  Fanne)  to  my  Lord  Cobham's,  where 
she  supt.  After  Supper  the  Maske  came  in,  as  I  writ 
in  my  last;  and  delicate  it  was  to  see  8  Ladies  soe 
pretily  and  richly  attired.  Mrs.  Fitton  leade,  and 
after  they  had  donne  all  their  owne  Ceremonies,  these 
8  Ladys  Maskers  choose  8  Ladies  more  to  dawnce  the 


Measures.  Mrs.  Fitton  went  to  the  Queen,  and  woed 
her  to  dawnce;  her  Majestie  asked  what  she  was; 
Affection,  she  said.  Affection!  said  the  Queen,  Affec- 
tion is  false.  Yet  her  Majestie  rose  and  dawnced; 
soe  did  my  Lady  Marques  [of  Winchester]. 

At  Court,  June  2j,  1600. 

The  remark  of  the  old  Queen's,  reported  by  Mr. 
Whyte,  who  was  evidently  present,  seems  to  have 
been  a  personal  rebuke  to  her  brilliant  Maid  of 
Honour,  in  view,  perhaps,  of  the  latter's  already 
certainly  questioned  behaviour,  but  was  softened 
by  her  Majesty's  rising  and  joining  in  the  dance. 
Mr.  Whyte's  minute  account  of  the  incident  per- 
haps indicates  Mary's  prominence,  and  also  its 
interest  to  Sir  Robert  Sidney.  The  Earl  of  Pem- 
broke's son,  Lord  Herbert,  with  Lord  Cobham, 
it  is  said,  conducted  the  bride  to  the  church  for 
the  wedding  ceremony.  Another  allusion  to  this 
"great  marriage"  occurs  in  John  Chamberlain's 
Letters,  mentioning  the  Masque  as  "in  name  of  the 
Muses  that  came  to  seeke  one  of  their  fellowes." 

There  are  some  other  letters,  interesting  on  the 
general  question,  and  giving  each  a  light  of  its 
own,  some  taken  from  Lady  Newdegate's  collec- 
tion of  the  letters  of  the  Fytton  family,  the  in- 
valuable Gossip  from  a  Muniment  Room,  and  some 
occurring  elsewhere.     In   a  letter  dated  July  3, 


20  ^fjafegpeare'fiJ  ^onnetsi 

1598,  Mary's  mother,  Lady  Fytton,  writing  to  her 
elder  daughter,  Mrs.  Anne  Newdigate,  seems  to 
have  thought  that  Mary  had  become  deficient  in 
attention  to  her,  for  she  says:  "If  you  heer  any 
thynge  of  your  sister  I  pray  you  let  know,  for  I 
nevar  harde  ffrom  herr  synce."  In  that  year  Lord 
Herbert,  aged  eighteen,  first  came  to  the  Court  as 
a  member  of  it,  but  probably  not  in  the  spring, 
as  has  been  suggested,  but  "some  few  days"  after 
June  1 8th.  (Pembroke  to  Cecil,  Hist.  MSS.  Com., 
Salisbury  MSS.,  Part  8,  p.  219.)  Mary's  inatten- 
tion, then,  communication  by  letter  being  generally 
slow  at  the  time,  was  probably  not  at  all  connected 
with  Lord  Herbert's  arrival.  The  letters  in  the 
Arbury  collection  are  said  to  have  been  "invari- 
ably sent  by  hand."  There  is  but  one  brief  note 
from  Mary  known  to  the  editor  of  the  Fytton 
Letters;  it  is  undated  and  written  in  "a  scrawling 
hand,"  as  Lady  Newdegate  tells  us,  to  her  sister, 
Anne,  perhaps  the  most  animated,  perhaps  it  may 
be  said,  excited,  note  in  the  book : 

To  my  dearest  syster,  Mris  An.  Newdigate.  Since 
distance  bares  me  from  so  gret  hapenes  as  I  can  seldom 
hear  from  you,  which  when  I  do  is  so  welcome,  as  I 
esteme  nothing  more  worthie,  and  for  your  love,  which 
I  dout  not  of,  shal  be  equeled  in  ful  mesuer,  but  lest 
my  lines  to  tedius  wear,  and  time  that  limetes  all 
thinges  bares  me  of  wordes,  which  eles  could  never  ses 


to  tel  howe  dear  you  ar,  and  with  what  sele  I  desire 
your  retourne,  than  can  wish  nothing  then  your  hartes 
desir,  and  wil  ever  continou  Your  afectionet  sister, 

Mary  Phytton. 

The  rapidity,  brevity,  emotional  excitement  and 
enforcement  of  her  love  for  her  sister,  which  can  be 
read  in  this  note,  are  its  striking  characteristics, 
and  perhaps  account  for  its  preservation  by  her 
sister.  The  reference  to  the  limitation  of  time  is  in 
a  noticeably  high  style  for  so  brief  a  note,  certainly 
resembling  a  little  a  Shakspearean  echo,  as  far  as  it 
goes.  Her  apparent  tide  of  happiness,  as  well  as 
her  wish  for  her  sister's  presence,  are  also  worth 
consideration.  In  themselves  unnoticeable,  the 
words  "lest  my  lines  to  tedius  wear,"  taken  in 
connection  with  the  possible  reflex  of  conversations 
with  the  dramatist,  suggested  by  the  reference  to 
time,  are  not  unlike  what  might  be  said  by  a  person 
interested  in  a  dramatist,  and  thus  in  dramatic  and 
other  composition.  The  want  of  a  date  in  this 
letter  makes  it  quite  impossible  to  certainly  place 
it.  From  its  fresh  girlishness,  when  compared  with 
the  increasingly  trying  conditions  of  her  later  years 
at  the  Court,  as  will  appear  further  in  this  essay, 
the  tendency  of  the  reader  will  be  to  place  it  early 
in  her  career  there.  " Ses"  and  "sele,"  mean  cease 
and  zeal.    "Retourne"  might  mean  Anne's  return 


22  ^i)ahfiptaxt'9i  ^onnct£{ 

to  the  family's  house  in  London,  or  to  the  Court 
nearby,  at  Nonsuch.  The  words  "than"  and 
"then,"  which  follow,  should,  for  the  sake  of  syn- 
tax, perhaps  be  exchanged,  one  for  the  other.  The 
family  name  appears  variously  in  its  spelling,  vari- 
ous speUing  seeming  to  have  been  the  fashion;  it 
is  written  Ffytton,  Ffyton,  Fytton,  Fyton,  Phyt- 
ton,  Phyton,  Phitton,  Fiton,  Fitten  and,  perhaps 
most  usually,  Fitton.  Her  parents  appear  to  have 
always  signed  Ffytton  or  Ffyton.  In  this  essay, 
the'spelHng  Fytton  is  adopted. 

What  else  of  her  life,  during  her  stay  at  Court, 
is  to  be  recorded  here,  will  be  found  in  the  corre- 
spondence of  Sir  William  Knollys,  in  remarks  upon 
the  course  of  events  leading  to  Mary's  fall  and 
upon  her  character,  and  upon  her  illness  in  1600,  in 
a  reference  to  her  patronage  of  the  actor,  WiUiam 
Kempe,  and  in  the  elucidations  of  sonnets  whose 
allusions  may  be  connected  with  her.  We  continue 
with  her  history  after  the  Russell  wedding. 

In  the  Calendar  of  the  Carew  MSS.,  is  a  letter 
from  Sir  Robert  Cecil  to  Sir  George  Carew,  dated 
at  Court,  February  5,  1601.  A  postscript  to  this 
letter — the  letter  refers  to  Sir  George  Carew's 
Governorship  of  the  Province  of  Munster — is  inter- 
esting as  a  confirmation  from  almost  the  highest 
source  of  the  Herbert-Fytton  story: 


p.  S.  We  have  no  news  but  that  there  is  a  misfor- 
tune befallen  Mistress  Fitton,  for  she  is  proved  with 
child,  and  the  Earl  of  Penbrooke,  being  examined, 
confesseth  a  fact,  but  utterly  renounceth  all  marriage. 
I  fear  they  will  both  dwell  in  the  Tower  awhile,  for  the 
Queen  hath  vowed  to  send  them  thither. 

Lord  Herbert  is  called  the  Earl  of  Pembroke  be- 
cause his  father,  who  was  ill  beyond  prospect  of 
recovery  at  the  time  of  this  exposure,  died  Janu- 
ary 19,  1601.  The  letter  is  preceded  in  the  Carew 
MSS.  by  one  from  Sir  John  Stanhope  to  Sir  George 
Carew,  dated  "this  26  of  January,"  meaning  in 
1 60 1,  saying: 

Of  the  persecution  which  is  like  to  befall  the  poor 
maids'  chamber  in  Court,  and  of  Fytton's  afflictions, 
and  lastly  her  commitment  to  my  Lady  Hawkyns,  of 
the  discouragement  thereby  of  the  rest,  though  it  be 
now  out  of  your  element  to  think  of,  yet  I  doubt  not  but 
that  some  friend  doth  more  particularly  advertise  you. 

In  the  Public  Record  Office  is  a  letter  from 
"pretty,  little"  Toby  Matthew  to  Dudley  Carleton 
containing  this  item,  and  dated  March  25,  1601 : 

The  Earl  of  Pembroke  is  committed  to  the  Fleet: 
his  cause  is  delivered  of  a  boy,  who  is  dead. 

Mary  was  taken  home  then  by  her  father  to 
Gawsworth.    Sir  Edward  Fytton,  Mary's  father, 


24  ^fjafesipeare'si  ^onneW 

wrote  to  Sir  Robert  Cecil  as  follows:     (Calendar 
of  the  Salisbury  MSS.,  Part  ii): 

Here-enclosed  are  divers  examinations  sent  to  me 
as  Mayor  of  Maxfeld  [Macclesfield],  and  come  to  me 
at  Stamer  [Stanmore],  in  the  night,  where  I  was  en- 
forced to  abide  by  reason  of  my  daughter's  weakness, 
...  I  say  nothing  of  the  Earl  [of  Pembroke],  but 
my  daughter  is  confident  in  her  claim  before  God,  and 
wishes  my  Lord  and  she  might  but  meet  before  in- 
different hearers.  But  for  myself,  I  expect  no  good 
from  him,  that  in  all  this  time  has  not  shewed  any 
kindness.  I  count  my  daughter  as  good  a  gentle- 
woman as  my  Lord,  though  the  dignity  of  honour  be 
greater  only  in  him,  which  has  beguiled  her  I  fear, 
except  my  Lord's  honesty  be  the  greater  virtues. 

i8  May  [1601],  at  Stanmer. 

Lord  Herbert's  attitude  in  the  matter  was  that 
not  only  a  particular  but  a  general  assault  had 
been  made  to  the  Queen  upon  his  character,  and 
that,  in  the  latter  respect,  he  was  innocent.  He 
writes  to  Sir  Robert  Cecil,  from  Wilton  House,  the 
residence  of  his  father,  who  was  then  dying,  as 
follows;  the  letters  are  in  the  Marquis  of  Salis- 
bury's Calendar  of  IVTanuscripts  {Hist.  MSS.  Com., 
Part  11): 

You  have  given  me  so  many  testimonies  of  your 
love,  that  I  will  plainly  and  absolutely  put  myself 
into  your  hands.     I  was  sent  to  by  a  very  friend  of 


mine  to  come  post  to  the  Court,  and  not  to  fail  of 
being  there  to  wait  on  Tuesday  at  dinner,  if  I  would 
not  utterly  lose  the  Queen's  favour:  a  sentence  of  little 
more  comfort  than  hanging :  and  yet  if  I  had  made  all 
the  haste  I  could,  I  should  hardly  have  been  there  by 
the  time,  receiving  the  letters  but  this  Monday  morn- 
ing about  8  o'clock:  and  if  I  could  perchance  have 
been  there  by  the  time,  I  leave  to  your  judgment  how 
fit  to  wait  that  day.  Therefore,  if  ever  you  will  ex- 
press your  love,  let  me  find  it  in  this,  for  if  I  cannot 
obtain  her  Majesty's  favour  to  remain  with  my  Lord 
[his  father]  in  his  weakness,  I  shall  quite  overthrow  my 
fortune.  ...  I  beseech  you  bestow  a  few  lines  in 
post  upon  me  that  I  may  know  my  doom. 
Wilton,  Monday  morning  at  lo  o'clock. 
Endorsed  by  Sir  Robert,  5  Jan.  1601,  Lord  Herbert. 

There  hath  been  many  false  and  scandalous  reports 
forged  of  me,  which  have  as  maliciously  been  delivered 
unto  her  Majesty,  to  make  her,  if  it  were  possible,  to 
withdraw  her  former  favour  from  me:  taking  this 
advantage  of  my  absence  when  I  could  make  no  answer 
for  myself,  but  I  doubt  not  in  the  end  the  shame  will 
fall  upon  themselves.  Yet  they  have  driven  me  to  this 
inconvenience,  that  when  I  should  sue  for  a  benefit  I 
am  forced  to  excuse  a  fault,  two  actions  unfit  to  be 
coupled  together,  but  as  my  state  now  is,  not  to  be 
divided.  You  know  there  be  some  offices  now  fallen 
into  the  Queen's  hands  which  my  Lord  in  his  life-time 
held,  and  though  of  small  commodity,  yet  the  dis- 
grace of  not  being  as  worthy  as  another  to  enjoy  them 
after  him  will  be  to  me  exceeding  great.  Therefore  I 
beseech  you  thus  much  to  stand  my  friend,  that  they 


26  ^ijafefifpeare's!  bonnets! 

may  be  stayed  till  I  have  the  happiness  to  speak  with 
her  Majesty  myself. 

Wiltoyi,  this  i8  of  January  in  the  evening.  {1601.) 
P.  S.  If  you  have  not  a  note  of  the  offices,  Rowland 
White  shall  deliver  one  unto  you. 

After  these  letters,  the  young  Earl  seems  to  have 
spent  some  time  in  the  Fleet  prison,  and  on  his 
emergence  wrote  to  Sir  Robert  Cecil,  as  follows : 

The  imposition  you  laid  upon  me  for  my  wardship 
[the  interval  between  the  old  Earl's  decease  and  the 
new  Earl's  coming  of  age],  though  it  be  a  very  heavy 
burden  on  my  weak  means,  having  so  many  great 
payments  to  make  besides;  yet  since  it  is  her  Majesty's 
pleasure,  I  will  not  dispute  it,  but  wholly  submit  my- 
self to  her  sacred  will.  I  think  myself  much  favoured 
by  her  Majesty,  that  it  would  please  her  to  give  me 
leave  to  go  abroad  to  follow  my  own  business:  but  I 
cannot  forbear  telling  of  you  that  yet  I  endure  a  very 
grievous  imprisonment.  ...  In  this  vile  case  am  I, 
whose  miserable  fortune  it  is  to  be  banished  from  the 
sight  of  her  [the  Queen],  in  whose  favour  the  balance 
consisted  of  my  misery  or  happiness,  and  whose  in- 
comparable beauty  was  the  only  sun  of  my  little  world, 
that  alone  had  power  to  give  it  light  and  heat.  Now 
judge  you  whether  this  be  a  bondage  or  no. 

Baynard's  Castle,  ig  June. 
Endorsed,  1601,  Earl  of  Pembroke. 

I  have  not  yet  been  a  day  in  the  country,  and  I  am 
as  weary  of  it  as  if  I  had  been  a  prisoner  there  seven 
years.     I  see  I  shall  never  turn  good  Justice  of  the 


Peace.  Therefore  I  pray,  if  the  Queen  determine  to 
continue  my  banishment,  and  prefer  sweet  Sir  Edward 
[Fytton?]  before  me,  that  you  will  assist  me  with  your 
best  means  to  get  leave  to  go  into  some  other  land, 
that  the  change  of  the  climate  may  purge  me  of  melan- 
choly: for  else  I  shall  never  be  fit  for  any  civil  society. 
I  have  written,  sorrowfully  complaining,  to  my  Lord 
Admiral  that  he  will  be  pleased  to  move  my  suit  again, 
since  there  is  no  appearance  of  grace.  The  patent  of 
the  Forest  of  Dean  could  not  so  speedily  be  gotten  be- 
fore my  going  out  of  town,  but  very  shortly  Arthur 
Massinger  shall  attend  you  with  it. 

Undated:  endorsed,  13  Aug.  1601. 

What  love  and  thankfulness  you  could  have  ex- 
pected from  me  if  I  had  prevailed,  the  same  to  the  best 
of  my  power  you  shall  find  me  ready  to  perform  on  all 
occasions,  now  that  I  am  disgraced.  Her  Majesty,  as 
I  heard,  when  she  promised  Mr.  Mumpersons  a  Park, 
after  my  Lord  your  father's  death,  when  she  knew  how 
nearly  it  concerned  my  Lord  Burghley  in  honour,  re- 
called her  promise,  preserved  my  Lord's  honour,  and 
graciously  satisfied  her  servant  another  way.  If  it 
had  pleased  her  Majesty  as  graciously  to  have  con- 
ceived in  this  matter  of  the  Forest  of  Dean,  of  that 
poor  reputation  I  was  desirous  to  preserve,  the  main- 
tenance whereof  might  have  enabled  [me]  to  do  her 
Majesty  more  honour  and  service  than  now  I  am  able 
to  perform,  I  should  have  been  happy,  and  Sir  Edward 
[Winter?]  might  another  way  as  well  have  been  satis- 
fied. But  since  her  Majesty  has  in  her  wisdom  thought 
fit  to  lay  this  disgrace  upon  me,  I  accuse  nothing  but 
my  own  unworthiness,  which  since  I  so  plainly  read  in 


28  ^f)aksiptaxt*si  ^anmtsi 

my  own  fortunes,  I  will  alter  my  hopes,  and  teach  them 
to  propose  unto  themselves  no  other  ends  than  such  as 
they  shall  be  sure  to  receive  no  disgrace  in.  The  hawk 
that  is  once  canvast  will  the  next  time  take  heed  of  the 
net;  and  shall  I  that  was  born  a  man  and  capable  of 
reason,  commit  greater  folly  than  birds  that  have 
naught  but  sense  to  direct  them  ?  If  her  Majesty  make 
this  the  returning  way  for  her  favour,  though  it  be  like 
the  way  of  salvation,  narrow  and  crooked,  yet  my 
hopes  dare  not  travel  through  the  ruggedness  of  it, 
for  they  stumble  so  often  that  before  they  come  half 
way  they  despair  of  passing  such  difficulties.  There 
be  some  things  yet  in  her  Majesty's  hands  to  dispose 
of,  which  if  it  would  please  her  to  grace  me  with,  might 
happely  [sic]  in  some  measure  patch  up  my  disgrace  in 
the  opinion  of  the  world.  But  I  have  vowed  never 
again  to  be  a  suitor,  since  in  my  first  suit  I  have  re- 
ceived such  a  blow. 

Ramsbury,  2  Sept.,  {160 1). 

Yesternight  I  received  a  message  from  my  Lord 
Admiral  by  my  uncle,  that,  when  his  Lordship  moved 
the  Queen  for  me,  she  said  she  would  have  me  go  keep 
house  in  the  country.  How  unfit  this  course  will  be  for 
me,  I  am  sure  you  are  sufficiently  satisfied.  Only  this 
I  have  gotten,  that  I  perceive  her  Majesty  still  con- 
tinues in  her  wonted  displeasure  towards  me,  for  when 
she  was  in  the  height  of  her  anger,  her  answer  was  the 
very  same.  I  request  that  all  motions  for  me  but  for 
my  travel  may  not  so  much  as  be  remembered.  When 
I  last  spoke  with  you,  you  made  no  doubt  of  obtaining 
my  leave,    I  beseech  you  still  be  earnest  in  it. 

Undated:  ascribed  to  Oct.,  160 1. 


I  know  not  how  to  be  sufficiently  thankful  for  so 
great  a  favour  bestowed  on  me,  in  getting  the  Queen 
to  consent  for  my  going  beyond  the  seas,  but  you  may 
assure  yourself  that  while  I  live  I  will  ever  remain 
wholly  devoted  to  do  you  service.  I  beseech  you,  while 
her  Majesty  is  in  this  good  disposition,  you  will  give 
order  to  Mr.  Lake  to  draw  my  license,  and  procure  her 
Majesty's  gracious  hand,  and  then  you  shall  be  de- 
livered from  an  importunate  suitor  that  often  troubled 
you  with  many  idle  businesses. 

Undated:  endorsed,  Earl  of  Pembroke ^  1601. 

There  are  an  insensibility  and  a  presumptuous- 
ness  about  these  letters,  written  under  circum- 
stances so  painful  and  discreditable,  which  make  a 
poor  appearance  in  the  cold  light  of  history,  par- 
ticularly Lord  Herbert's  general  attitude  toward 
his  fault,  his  cool  and  also  injudicious  comparison 
of  his  claims  with  those  of  the  second  Lord  Burgh- 
ley,  Sir  Robert  Cecil's  half-brother,  a  man  hon- 
oured, if  not  for  himself,  still  in  recognition  of  the 
first  Lord  Burghley's  transcendent  services  {Sep- 
tember 2d),  and  his  persistent  suit  for  office.  The 
Queen's  decision  that  he  should  "go  keep  house  in 
the  country"  seems  to  have  been,  in  the  circum- 
stances, an  eminently  just  one.  Surely  this  was 
not  the  man  upon  whom  Shakspeare  lavished  his 
enthusiastic  admiration  in  the  earlier  sonnets.  Ac- 
cording to  Mr.  Tyler,  the  Patent  of  the  Forest  of 


30  ^Jjafefi^peare's;  ^onnei^ 

Dean  was  returned  by  the  young  Earl,  through 
Arthur  Massinger,  to  Sir  Robert  Cecil,  and  was 
afterwards  reissued,  not  to  the  Earl,  but  to  Sir 
Edward  Winter,  who  is  the  "Sir  Edward"  men- 
tioned in  the  letters  (Shakespeare's  Sonnets,  Tyler's 
Ed.,  p.  63),  and  during  the  remainder  of  the  reign 
of  the  Queen,  at  least,  the  Earl  lost  the  care  of 
the  Forest.  The  Historical  MSS.  Commission,  in 
whose  Report  the  letters  are  found,  have  thought 
that  by  "Sir  Edward,"  Sir  Edward  Fytton  was 
meant.  It  seems  to  be  clear  from  the  context  that 
in  the  letter  of  August  it  is  rather  Sir  Edward 
Fytton  who  is  intended,  and  in  that  of  September, 
Sir  Edward  Winter.  If  this  is  a  correct  understand- 
ing of  the  letters,  and  it  seems  to  be  quite  plain, 
the  allusion  to  Sir  Edward  Fytton  is  in  the  poorest 
taste.  The  remaining  offices  "now  fallen  into  the 
Queen's  hands"  (letter  of  January  i8th),  appear 
to  have  been  minor  dignities  of  the  family,  lapsed 
on  the  death  of  the  old  Earl,  a  note  of  which  Row- 
land Whyte  was  to  bring  to  Sir  Robert  Cecil.  Near 
the  letters  in  the  Salisbury  Calendar  (p.  99),  is  a 
list  of  "Stewardships  of  castles"  and  "keeping  of 
Claringdon  Park,  Wilts,"  stated  to  be  "offices 
lately  in  possession  of  Henry,  Earl  of  Pembroke," 
and  which  may  possibly  be  the  "note  of  the  offices" 
to  be  sent  through  Rowland  Whyte,  and  for  which 


the  new  Earl  pleaded  so  insensibly  and  irrepressi- 
bly.  If  the  Earl  went  abroad  it  was  not  for  very 
long,  as  at  Christmas- time,  1602,  he  appears  in 
Rutlandshire  passing  a  "royal  Christmas"  with  his 
friends. 

Clarendon's  account  of  this  Earl  of  Pembroke, 
in  the  introductory  part  of  his  History,  is  rather 
eulogistic  than  reliable,  if  we  accept  comprehen- 
sively his  own  statement  of  the  Earl's  career. 
Pembroke  was  of  the  generation  preceding  that  of 
Clarendon,  who  was  little  more  than  twenty-one 
years  old  at  Pembroke's  death,  and  the  portrait 
drawn  of  him  by  Clarendon  is  therefore  more  a 
summary  of  the  eulogies  of  surviving  friends  than 
the  impartial  and  just  description  of  an  eye-wit- 
ness. Through  his  dissolute  habits  he  became,  at 
the  last,  according  to  Clarendon's  review  of  him, 
impaired  in  his  health,  dying  without  issue.  His 
yearly  income  is  said  to  have  been  £22,000,  repre- 
senting four  or  five  times  as  much,  as  money  is 
valued  now.  His  letters,  in  their  cultivated  style, 
resemble  those  of  Lord  Southampton  and  the 
other  cultured  men  of  the  time,  the  result,  in  great 
measure,  of  the  careful  tutoring  which,  as  we 
know,  he  must  have  had.  A  sentence  of  Shak- 
speare's,  in  one  of  his  earlier  plays,  applies  with 
aptness  to  Lord  Herbert's  letters  (//  Hen.  IV.,  II, 


32  ^fjafegpeare'si  ^onnet£^ 

i,  12 1).  They  point  to  a  substantial  poorness  of 
disposition  in  Lord  Herbert;  apparent  throughout, 
in  his  allusion  to  Sir  Edward  Fytton  (August  13th) 
in  his  fling,  a  little  lacking  in  respect  in  the  last 
clause  quoted,  at  the  Queen  (June  19th),  and  in 
the  other  uninspiring  characteristics  of  them  al- 
ready mentioned. 

The  reasons  for  the  belief  that  Shakspeare's 
earlier  sonnets  were  written  to  Lord  Southampton, 
and  not  to  Lord  Herbert,  cannot  be  entered  into 
in  this  essay.  Lord  Southampton  was  married  to 
Elizabeth  Vernon  in  1598,  after  a  long  courtship, 
and  one  of  considerable  intensity,  within  the  period 
therefore  in  which  the  sonnets  to  the  "  Dark  Lady" 
were  being  written,  as  is  the  best  inference  from  the 
date  of  The  Passionate  Pilgrim,  1599,  and  the  con- 
nection with  them  of  Lord  Southampton  is  there- 
fore far  less  likely  than  that  of  Lord  Herbert.  If 
we  connect  the  first  sonnet  of  the  "Dark  Lady" 
series  with  the  year  of  the  revision  of  Love's  La- 
bour's Lost,  1597,  and  the  concluding  sonnets  of 
the  series  with  The  Passionate  Pilgrim,  in  which 
two  of  them  appeared,  in  1599,  we  have  a  period  of 
about  two  years,  mid  1 597-1 599,  for  the  composi- 
tion of  the  "Dark  Lady"  series,  and  this  is  in 
harmony  with  the  uniform  style  of  the  sonnets 
themselves. 


Sonnet  CXXXIV,  in  its  doubtless  accurate  pre- 
sentation of  legal  learning  as  to  the  redemption  of 
a  mortgaged  estate  and  the  obligation  of  a  surety, 
was  probably  coincident  with  Shakspeare's  efforts 
in  1597  and  thereafter  to  relieve  Asbies,  his  moth- 
er's property,  from  the  tenure  of  John  Lambert, 
heir  of  the  mortgagee. 

Piecing  together  the  facts  known  from  the  ac- 
knowledged records,   and  adding  to  them  some 
indications  appearing  in  the  sonnets,  both  within 
and  without  the  "Dark  Lady"  series,  we  can  with 
some  probability  reconstruct  the  course  of  events 
in  the  Shakspeare-Herbert-Fytton  story,   as  fol- 
lows.    If  we  may  suppose  that  Mary  Fytton  did 
feel  an  attachment  for  the  poet,  a  marriage  with 
him  was,  of  course,  quite  out  of  the  question.    We 
have  the  still  charming,  though  hasty  and  excited, 
tone  of  the  solitary  letter  of  hers  which  we  possess, 
and  which  may,  perchance,  have  been  written  near 
the  commencement  of  the  series  of  sonnets  which 
we  are  inclined  to  attribute  to  her  influence.     In 
estimating  the  character  of  Mary  Fytton  at  the 
time  of  her  misstep  and  before  it,  we  are  chiefly 
impressed  by  her  personal  ascendency,  her  clever- 
ness, her  great  power  of  attraction  and  her  care- 
lessness of  any  moral  code.    Her  situation  at  the 
3 


34  ^\)akiptaxt*9i  ^onnetsl 

Court  was  one  which  would  become,  necessarily, 
increasingly  painful  and  trying.  She  was  oppressed 
by  the  attentions  of  a  Sir  William  Knollys,  a 
cotemporary  of  her  father's,  who  had  undertaken 
to  be  her  defender  and  counselor  at  the  Court, 
whom  she  had  permitted  to  become  fascinated  by 
her,  and  to  whom  she  had  granted  also  a  species  of 
engagement,  dependent  upon  the  death  of  his  wife, 
a  matrimonial  prospect  which  there  is  reason  to 
believe  she  disliked,  and  a  contract  also  which  she 
seems  to  have  felt  at  liberty  to  break  at  any  mo- 
ment for  one  more  immediate  and  suitable.  There 
seem  to  have  been  rumours  about  the  Court, 
whether  connecting  her  with  the  poet  or  not  we  can- 
not now  know,  and  which  must  have  been  painful  to 
her  as  they  were  denied  belief  by  Sir  William.  Her 
position  thus  tending  to  become  ever  more  doubt- 
ful and  dissatisfying,  there  came  the  high  success 
of  Mistress  Anne  Russell,  also  a  Maid  of  Honour, 
with  the  other  Lord  Herbert,  the  Earl  of  Worces- 
ter's son — it  was  certainly  near  to  the  time  of  that 
great  wedding  that  Mary  made  her  fatal  misstep — 
and  beyond  this  incitement  to  her  emulation,  there 
was  the  Queen's  open  rebuke  at  the  time,  which 
might  induce  her  to  wish  to  justify  herself  by  a 
corresponding  success.  The  Court  of  the  old 
Queen,  as  we  learn  from  the  Fytton  Letters,  had 


weakened  its  minor  discipline,  at  least  in  respect 
to  the  Maids  of  Honour,  and  the  young  lady  was 
therefore  much  at  her  own  disposal.     Lord  Her- 
bert's instant  refusal  to  marry  her,  though  she  was 
of  a  distinguished  family  and  eminently  attractive, 
cannot  but  cast  a  shadow  of  question  on  her,  and 
it  is  deepened  by  the  rumours  of  her  at  the  Court 
as  well  as  by  her  subsequent  career.     Some  time 
earlier,  or  so  the  circumstances  seem  to  indicate, 
she  had  felt  herself  compelled  to  place  her  hopes, 
without  delay,  in  some  direction  more  suitable  to 
her  age  than  Sir  William,  and  she  seems  to  have 
increased  an  acquaintance  into  a  pursuit,  which 
was  generally  noticed,  of  Lord  Herbert,  a  youth 
probably  soon  to  be  Earl  of  Pembroke,  who  was  a 
newcomer  at  the  Court,  and  who,  though  of   an 
early  maturity,  as  his  letters  show,  was  nearly  two 
years  younger  than  herself.    That  she  should  have 
tolerated   or   permitted   the   familiarities   of   the 
irresponsible  young  man,  the  future  Earl,  having 
especial  reason  for  caution  with  him,  as  he  might 
suspect  her  of  imprudence  with  the  poet  (Sonnets 
CXXXIH,  CXXXIV),  was  a  part  of  the  error 
which  is  inseparable  from  a  nature  such  as  hers. 
Relying  on  her  own  powers,  and  more  and  more 
involved  in  her  pursuit,  she  might  imagine  that  at 
the  price  of  some  freedom  with  the  most  powerful 


36  ^J)afe)Speare*sf  ^onnetfi! 

of  her  suitors,  she  could,  through  persuading  him 
to  ask  for  marriage,  arrive  at  a  marriage  equal  to 
that  of  Mistress  Anne  Russell,  put  to  silence  all 
discussion  about  the  past,  and  regain  security  for 
her  future.  That  under  such  circumstances  she 
was  taken  advantage  of  by  a  man  of  exceptional 
rapacity  in  this  respect,  who  then  refused  her,  and 
covered  her  with  obloquy,  not  only  crushed  her 
hopes  and  excited  a  general  comment,  but  in  all 
probability  reacted  heavily  upon  the  poet-actor, 
Shakspeare  himself,  among  those  who  knew  the 
circumstances,  if,  that  is,  he  had  in  fact  been  earlier 
attracted  by  her,  and  had  been  therefore  also 
involved,  an  issue  which  depends  upon  the  prin- 
cipal thesis  of  this  Note,  whether  Mary  Fytton 
was,  or  was  not,  the  "Dark  Lady"  of  the  sonnets, 
and  also  upon  the  further  question  of  the  date  and 
interpretation  of  Sonnets  CXVI-CXXVI  addressed 
to  Lord  Southampton. 

The  delicate  and  exquisite  lyric,  CXLV,  was 
probably  among  the  first  addressed  to  the  ' '  Dark 
Lady"  by  Shakspeare,  and  remains  as  a  witness 
to  their  first  relation. 

Those  lips  that  Love's  own  hand  did  make 
Breathed  forth  the  sound  that  said  "  I  hate," 
To  me  that  languished  for  her  sake : 


^l)afe£fpeare's;  bonnets!  37 

But  when  she  saw  my  woeful  state, 
Straight  in  her  heart  did  mercy  come, 
Chiding  that  tongue  that  ever  sweet, 
Was  used  in  giving  gentle  doom; 
And  taught  it  thus  anew  to  greet; 
"I  hate"  she  altered  with  an  end, 
That  followed  it  as  gentle  day 
Doth  follow  night,  who  like  a  fiend 
From  heaven  to  hell  is  flown  away. 

"I  hate"  from  hate  away  she  threw. 
And  saved  my  life,  saying  "not  you." 

The  exultant  and  lover-like  lines  seem  to  have 
been  written  almost  extempore. 

The  Sidney  Papers  give  a  faint  and  conjectural 
light  upon  some  incidents  immediately  preceding 
the  Russell  wedding,  which  might  have  occurred 
so  had  Mary  Fytton  been  the  "Dark  Lady"  of  the 
sonnets;  on  the  other  hand,  they  are  susceptible  of 
other  explanations.  The  letters  were  w^ritten  to 
Lord  Herbert's  uncle,  who  seems  to  have  been  con- 
tinually interested  in  Mistress  Fytton.  The  dates 
of  the  letters  are  altered  to  the  present  usage : 

MyXord  Harbert  taking  Yesternight  his  Leave  of 
Lord  Nottingham  and  Sir  R.  Cecil  .  .  .  Lord  Har- 
bert is  highly  favored  by  the  Queen,  for  at  his  Depar- 
ture, he  had  Access  unto  her,  and  was  private  an 
Howre;  but  he  greatly  wants  Advise,  and  extremely 
longes  for  you  here. 

Baynard's  Castell,  Nov.  2p,  1599. 


38  ^fjafesfpcare's!  bonnets; 

Her  Majestie  is  in  very  good  Health,  and  comes 
much  abroad  these  Holidayes,  for  almost  every  Night 
she  is  in  the  Presence,  to  see  the  Ladies  dawnce  the  old 
and  new  country  Dawnces,  with  the  Taber  and  Pipe. 
.  .  ,  My  Lord  Harbert  is  sicke  of  his  Tertian  Ague 
at  Ramesbury. 

Richmond,  this  Twelve  Eve,  Jan.  5,  1600. 

Mrs.  Fitton  is  sicke,  and  gon  from  Court  to  her 
Father's.  Mrs.  Onslow  doth  Exceed  the  rest  in  Brav- 
ery, which  is  noted.  Mrs.  Southwell  is  now  one  of 
the  Nomber.     [These  were  Maids  of  Honour.] 

Baynard's  Castell,  Jan.  12,  1600. 

My  Lord  Harbert,  ...  is  fallen  to  have  his  Ague 
again,  and  no  Hope  of  his  being  here,  before  Easter, 
which  I  am  sorry  for. 

Baynard's  Castell,  Jan.  24,  1600. 

Lady  Sidney,  wife  of  Sir  Robert  Sidney,  the  uncle 
of  Lord  Herbert,  "visited  Mrs.  Fitton,  that  hath  long 
bene  here  sicke  in  London." 

Baynard's  Castell,  Feb.  21,  1600. 

My  Lord  Harbert  came  on  Wednesday  night,  and 
within  this  Howre  he  goes  to  the  Court;  I  find  him 
exceedingly  desirous  to  see  you. 

Baynard's  Castell,  March  75,  1600. 

Mr.  Whyte  seems,  in  the  first  letter  of  November 
29,  1599,  and  perhaps  again  in  the  last,  of  March 
15,  1600,  to  have  felt  some  anxiety  about  Lord 


Herbert,  and  this  may  have  been  aroused  by  Lord 
Herbert's  conduct  in  respect  to  Mary  Fytton,  as 
that,  soon  after  March,  1600,  led  to  the  later  and 
absolute  displeasure  of  the  Queen.    Lord  Herbert, 
at  the  time  when  Mr.  Whyte  wrote  the  earlier 
letter,  that  of  November  29,   1599,  had  left  the 
Court.     Mary  Fytton,  also,  appears  to  have  left 
the  Court,  and  to  have  gone  to,  or,  perhaps  taken 
refuge  with,  her  father,  on  a  plea  of  sickness,  some 
time  before  January  12,  1600,  a  month  later  than 
Lord  Herbert's  departure.     This  was  not  at  her 
father's  house  at  Gawsworth  but  at  his  house  in 
London — that  her  father  had  a  house  in  London  is 
estabHshed  by  a  letter  dated  from  it,  and  appearing 
in  Lady  Newdegate's  Fytton  Letters — where  her 
father  may  have  been.     At  all  events,  the  young 
lady  was  in  London  when  Lady  Sidney,  who  was 
Lord  Herbert's  aunt  by  marriage,  called  on  her 
toward  the  end  of  February,  1600,  and  she  had 
been  there,  and  not  at  Court,  for  what  Mr.  Whyte 
calls   a   "long"   period,    certainly  from   early   in 
January.    Lord  Herbert  was  away  from  Court,  at 
Ramsbury,  Newbury,  and  Wilton,  from  November 
29,  1599,  to  mid-March,  1600,  when  he  returned. 
Mary  was  thinking  of  returning  to  Court,  as  ap- 
pears to  be  very  probable  from  the  last  letter 
quoted  further  on  from  Sir  William  Knollys'  cor- 


40  ^fiafesipeare's;  ^onnetji 

respondence,  some  time  after  the  above  letter  of 
February  21,  1600,  and  not  far  from  the  time  of 
Lord  Herbert's  return  to  the  Court  in  March,  her 
return  to  health  nearly  coinciding  with  his  return 
to  Court.  These  weeks  or  months  of  her  absence 
were  not  long  before  her  fatal  error,  and  about  a 
year  after  the  time — basing  this  time  upon  the  first 
arrival  of  Lord  Herbert  at  the  Court  in  the  latter 
part  of  June,  1598,  and  the  probable  progress  of 
the  "Dark  Lady"  sonnets — when,  according  to 
the  Fytton  theory  of  the  sonnets,  the  influence 
of  the  actor-dramatist  upon  her  had  been  repelled 
by  her  in  favour  of  Lord  Herbert.  Considering 
the  incident,  there  seems  to  have  been  some  cause 
for  her  prolonged  absence  from  Court,  and  it 
appears  hardly  to  be  accounted  for  by  illness  in  a 
prominent  girl  of  twenty-one,  and  who  was  to  be 
the  leader  of  the  marriage  dance  of  June  i6th,  a 
scene  in  which  she  appeared  to  advantage,  an  en- 
viable distinction,  due  doubtless  to  her  own  attrac- 
tion and  ability,  but  rather  to  have  depended  upon 
Lord  Herbert's  absence.  It  seems  that  during  this 
time  of  absence  she  was  able  to  receive  Sir  William 
Knollys.  If  the  story  of  the  sonnets  of  1599,  two 
of  the  most  inculpating  in  the  "Dark  Lady"  series, 
should  be  taken  as  referring  to  her,  it  is  an  evident 
inference  that  she  may  have  feared  to  remain 


longer  at  Court  in  Lord  Herbert's  absence,  that 
is,  that  she  could  not  trust  herself  to  remain  there. 
Her  absence  from  Court  when  Lord  Herbert  was 
absent  accords  precisely  with  the  theory  that  she 
was  the  "Dark  Lady."  And  there  we  must  leave 
it.  In  accordance  with  the  theory,  it  may  be  said 
of  her  departure  from  Court  during  Lord  Herbert's 
departure  that,  while  there  may  have  been  various 
reasons  for  it,  still,  if  this  too  adventurous  young 
lady  had  conceived  a  true  passion  for  the  already 
married  playwright,  had  become  very  gravely 
entangled  in  it,  and  feared  the  world's  judgment 
upon  it,  such  might  her  conduct  have  been.  Ques- 
tionable as  the  point  is,  and  valuable  only  as  cor- 
roborative evidence,  it  is  certainly  true  that  her 
actions  correspond  to  what  might  be  expected,  if  her 
interest  in  the  poet  was  such  as  has  been  supposed. 

The  reader  may  care  to  see  that  the  conduct  of 
Lord  Herbert,  who  has  a  certain  place  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  sonnets,  was  not  unobserved  by  those 
who  were  watching  him.  Whyte  writes  to  Her- 
bert's uncle,  two  months  after  the  Russell  wedding: 

My  Lord  Harbert  is  very  well.  I  now  heare  litle 
of  that  Matter  intended  by  the  Earl  of  Nottingham. 
[Admiral  Lord  Charles  Howard  of  Effingham,  chief 
in  command  of  the  English    fleet  against  the  Spanish 


42  ^fjalisipeare'j;  ^onneW 

Armada],  towards  hym;  only  I  observe  he  makes  very 
much  of  hym;  but  I  don't  find  any  Disposicion  at  all 
in  this  gallant  young  Lord  to  marry. 

London,  Aug.  i6,  1600. 

The  intentions  of  the  Earl  of  Nottingham  toward 
Lord  Herbert  seem  to  have  been  in  the  direction  of 
a  matrimonial  arrangement,  but  which  did  not  take 
place.    Two  months  later  Mr.  Whyte  also  writes : 

My  Lord  Harbert  wilbe  all  the  next  Weeke  at  Green- 
wich, to  practise  at  Tilt.  He  often  wishes  you  here.  Be- 
leve  me,  my  Lord,  he  is  a  very  gallant  Gentleman,  and 
indeed  wants  such  a  Frend  as  you  are  neare  unto  him. 

Penshurst,  Oct.  18,  1600. 

Mr.  Whyte's  uneasiness  was  soon  shown  to  have 
adequate  cause, 

A  letter  of  reminiscence  in  the  Public  Record 
Office,  and  written  a  year  or  more  after  the  event, 
records  how  Mary  Fytton  used  to  throw  a  cloak 
about  her,  and  depart  from  the  Court  to  meet 
Lord  Herbert: 

In  that  time  when  that  Mrs.  Fytton  was  in  great 
favour,  and  one  of  her  Majesty's  Maids  of  Honour, 
and  during  the  time  that  the  Earl  of  Pembroke  fav- 
oured her,  she  would  put  off  her  head-tire,  and  tuck 
up  her  clothes,  and  take  a  large,  white  cloak,  and 
march  as  though  she  had  been  a  man  to  meet  the  said 
Earl  out  of  the  Court. 

S.  P.,  Dom.  Add.,  vol.  xxxiv. 


^I)afej(peare*£{  bonnets;  43 

Initiative  and  resolution,  and  also  freedom  of 
movement,  would  not  have  been  wanting  to  her, 
if  she  had  been  attracted  toward  the  great  drama- 
tist. Soon  after  leaving  the  Court,  she  seems  to 
have  gone  to  her  ever  constant  sister,  Anne,  at 
Arbury;  her  misfortune  was  condoned  by  her 
family,  and  she  was  recognized  by  some  at  least  of 
her  friends.  Subsequently,  in  1606,  she  was  in 
grave  fault  again,  ascribed,  most  probably,  to  a 
Captain  William  Polwhele,  whom  she  then  mar- 
ried. The  story,  doubtless  exaggerated,  credits  her 
with  two  or  even  three  illegitimate  children.  Her 
mother,  Lady  Fytton,  whose  husband.  Sir  Ed- 
ward, had  lately  died,  writes  in  1606  to  Anne,  then 
become  Lady  Newdigate,  at  Arbury: 

I  take  no  joye  to  heer  of  your  sister  nor  of  that  boy. 
If  it  hade  plesed  God  when  I  did  bear  her  that  shee 
and  I  hade  bine  beried,  it  hade  saved  mee  ffrom  a 
great  delle  of  sorow  and  gryffe,  and  her  ffrom  sham 
and  such  shame  as  never  hade  Chesshyre  woman, 
worse  now  than  ever.  Wrytt  no  mor  to  mee  of  her. 
Gossip  from  a  Muniment  Room,  ist  Ed.,  p.  76. 

A  postscript  follows  which  is  less  stern.  Later, 
Lady  Fytton,  writing  again,  probably  in  1607,  to 
her  daughter,  Anne,  Lady  Newdigate,  says: 

My  ladi  ffrancis  [Frances]  saed  she  [Mary]  was 
the  vyles  woman  under  the  sone  [sun].    .    .    ,     But 


44  ^fjafespeare's;  bonnets; 

Poullwhyll  is  a  very  kave  [knave?],  and  taketh  the  dis- 
grace of  his  wyff  and  all  her  f fryndes  to  make  the  wordt 
[world?]  thynk  hym  worthey  of  her,  and  that  she  des- 
sarved  no  bettar.  It  is  longe  to  wrytt  all  I  knowe. 
.  ,  .  Thus  praying  God  to  defend  us  ffrom  our 
enymes  and  blese  us,  I  end,  remaynyng  ever  your 
poure,  kynde,  greved  mother, 

A.  FFYTON. 

Gossip  from  a  Muniment  Room,  ist  Ed.,  p.  yg. 

JVIary  Polwhele,  becoming  herself  a  widow,  is 
afterwards  mentioned  in  the  Fytton  Letters,  in 
1611  or  1 61 2,  as  probably  with  Anne,  her  sister, 
then  also  a  widow,  at  Arbury,  and  the  record  of  the 
Fytton  Letters  makes  it  certain  that  Mary,  what- 
ever her  demerits,  was  still  of  such  merit  as  to  be 
recognized  by  her  sister.  Still  later,  Mary  married 
John  Lougher,  whom  also  she  survived,  dying 
finally  in  1647,  after  surviving  all,  apparently,  with 
whom  she  had  been  connected  in  her  earlier  years, 
her  parents,  brothers  and  sister,  and  amid  the  fall 
of  the  Monarchy  and  Court  in  which  she  had  lived. 

In  reading  these  sonnets  and  estimating  the  pos- 
sibility that  a  man  in  Shakspeare's  position,  an 
humble  actor  and  mere  playwright,  might  form  an 
attachment  for  a  lady  of  high  place  at  the  Court, 
we  must  not  forget  that  he  was,  though  obscured 
by  circumstance,  the  unapproached  King  of  Eng- 
lish literature,  and  that  he  had  in  him  the  power 


and  grace  which  made  him  famous,  after  his  day, 
for  his  then  little  appreciated  merits,  his  high  point 
of  view  and  his  wide  comprehension  of  the  world 
in  which  he  lived,  his  passion  for  truth,  his  wit,  and 
his  sense  of  form  which  kept  even  his  prolific  pen 
in  check,  his  insight  into  human  nature  and  his 
power  of  describing  its  most  secret  recesses,  his 
wide  tolerance,  his  range  from  the  poetic  to  a 
scientific  estimate  of  life — the  catalogue  of  his 
merits  is  a  long  one,  and,  besides  this,  the  testi- 
mony of  those  who  knew  him,  as  to  his  disposition, 
is  distinctly  to  his  credit.  He  was  a  man  thirty- 
three  years  old  in  1597,  and  recognized  by  the 
nobility,  and  by  the  Court  and  perhaps  by  the 
Queen,  not  certainly  but  probably,  in  that  year, 
through  his  Sir  John  Falstaff .  It  would  not  then 
be  either  impossible  or  unprecedented  that  an 
undisciplined  but  intelligent  young  lady  of  the 
Court,  as  was  Mary  Fytton,  should  come  to  enter- 
tain for  him  a  more  than  passing  regard. 

An  analysis  of  his  relation  to  Lord  Southampton, 
the  probable  dedicatee  of  the  majority  of  the 
sonnets,  indicates,  when  the  sonnets  are  carefully 
studied,  that  this  relation  was,  to  a  certain  extent, 
that  which  was  due  to  his  character,  mental  as- 
cendency and  literary  achievements,  though  con- 
ventionally lowered  by  his  actor's  profession,  and 


\ 


46  ^!)afe£{pearc*s!  ^onnetjsS 

that  he  was  by  no  means  the  mere  cUent  of  that 
nobleman  which  seems  sometimes  to  be  assumed. 
The  fact  is  far  otherwise,  his  private  relations  with 
Lord  Southampton  having  been  on  a  basis  of  na- 
tural equality  and  genuine  friendship.  (Sonnets 
CXX,  CXXV,  L,  LXXI,  LXXII,  etc.)  That  he 
advanced  from  such  a  situation  of  favour  (Sonnet 
CXII,  12),  so  far  as  to  permit  himself  to  be 
drawn  into  relations  with  a  lady  of  the  Court  is 
not,  when  the  statement  is  viewed  from  this  stand- 
point, essentially  improbable,  nor  will  such  a  his- 
tory be  put  aside  as  impossible. 

From  an  examination  of  her  life,  it  appears  that 
Mary  Fytton,  although  distinguished  at  Court, 
admired  and  attractive,  still  was  one  among  the 
enigmas  of  womankind,  ladies  dangerous  to  them- 
selves and  others,  and  this  gives  additional  strength 
to  the  theory  that  it  was  she  to  whom,  notwith- 
standing her  high  station,  Shakspeare  became 
attached,  and  who  is  so  curiously,  that  is,  con- 
demningly  and  admiringly,  described  in  the  son- 
nets. As  to  her  second  fault  in  1606,  it  is  on  record 
that  her  husband,  Polwhele,  was  recognized  in  1608, 
two  years  later,  by  her  great-uncle,  Francis  Fytton, 
in  his  Will,  who  left  to  him  ' '  my  usual  riding  sword, 
being  damasked,  commonly  called  a  fauchion,  and 
my  best  horse  or  gelding  of  mine,  to  his  own  best 


liking,  as  a  remembrance  and  token  of  my  love  to  him 
and  to  his  now  wife,"  and  that  her  sister.  Lady  New- 
digate,  remained  kind  to  her.  There  may,  there- 
fore, have  been  considerations  which  lessened  the 
judgment  which  we  are  now  inclined  to  pass  upon 
her,  and  also,  probably,  great  personal  attraction. 

Shakspeare's  part  in  this  long-past  tragedy,  now 
more  than  three  centuries  old,  was,  as  we  read  the 
sonnets,  the  subject  of  his  humiliated  but  still 
noble  answer,  in  a  sonnet  written,  most  probably, 
circa  1599,  to  Lord  Southampton,  and  it  is  a  part 
of  the  record  of  the  dramatist's  difference  with  and 
formal  withdrawal  as  a  client  from  him  (Sonnets 
CXVI-CXXVI) : 

'Tis  better  to  be  vile  than  vile  esteemed, 

When  not  to  be  receives  reproach  of  being; 

And  the  just  pleasure  lost,  which  is  so  deemed 

Not  by  our  feeling,  but  by  others'  seeing. 

For  why  should  others'  false  adulterate  eyes 

Give  salutation  to  my  sportive  blood? 

Or  on  my  frailties  why  are  frailer  spies, 

Which  in  their  wills  count  bad  what  I  think  good? 

No,  I  am  that  I  am,  and  they  that  level 

At  my  abuses  reckon  up  their  own; 

I  may  be  straight  though  they  themselves  be  bevel ; 

By  their  rank  thoughts  my  deeds  must  not  be  shown, 
Unless  this  general  evil  they  maintain. 
All  men  are  bad  and  in  their  badness  reign. 

Sonnet  CXXI, 


4^  ^fjafesipearc'fl;  ^onnttsi 

A  similar  expression  to  that  in  line  9,  "  I  am  that 
I  am,"  may  be  found  in  I  Corinthians,  xv,  10,  and 
see  in  Othello,  lago's  words,  I,  i,  65. 


THE  RESULT  TO  SHAKSPEARE 

The  subject  of  this  Note,  an  inquiry  mainly  as 
to  who  was  the  lady  to  whom  the  sonnets  to  the 
"Dark  Lady"  were  written,  is  certainly  an  un- 
grateful one,  and  it  might  seem,  at  first  thought, 
to  make  little  difference  whether  Shakspeare's 
irregularity  and  his  unhappiness  were  concerned 
with  Mary  Fytton  or  another,  but  the  question 
perhaps  goes  beyond  a  mere  question  of  names; 
this  episode  in  his  life,  as  Mary  Fytton  was  a  young 
lady  highly  connected  and  prominent  at  the  Court, 
if  this  theory  of  the  love-affair  is  accepted,  possibly 
affected  unfavourably  his  relations  with  his  friend, 
the  Earl  of  Southampton,  who  had  been  abroad 
during  much  of  the  year  1598,  the  year  in  which 
most  of  the  "Dark  Lady"  sonnets  were  written, 
and  who  also  had  just  married,  as  well  as  those 
with  the  Earl  of  Pembroke,  and  accordingly  his 


standing  with  the  nobility  in  general,  while  so 
great  a  check  upon  his  social  advancement,  es- 
pecially with  Lord  Southampton  (Sonnets  CXIX, 
CXX,  CXXI,  CXXV),  may  have  made  a  profound 
change  in  the  course  of  his  life,  and  affected  his 
later  plays.  There  must  be  some  method  for  un- 
ravelling the  incidents  of  the  time,  and  the  follow- 
ing representation  of  them  has  seemed  to  us  to 
perhaps  accord  with  the  conditions  in  Shakspeare's 
life,  as  we  understand  it,  and  to  give  a  slight  clue 
also  to  the  motives  perceptible  in  some  of  his  later 
work.  During  eight  months  of  the  year  1598  Lord 
Southampton  was  abroad  in  France  (he  embarked 
at  Dover  for  Dieppe  with  Sir  Robert  Cecil's  Em- 
bassy to  France,  Feb.  17,  and  protracted  his  stay 
in  France,  after  the  return  of  Sir  Robert,  until 
after  October  16),  excepting  his  brief  and  hasty 
trip  back  to  England  to  marry,  under  circum- 
stances which  made  marriage  necessary  for  the 
lady,  and  which  had  been  much  commented  upon ; 
when  Lord  Southampton  finally  returned  to  Eng- 
land, where  he  was  immediately  arrested  and  for  a 
short  time  imprisoned  by  the  Queen,  for  his  mar- 
riage with  a  Maid  of  Honour  without  the  Queen's 
previous  consent,  he,  and  even  more  Lady  South- 
ampton, would  assuredly  be  scrupulously  careful 
as  to  their  own  standing  in  every  kind  of  circum- 
4 


50  ^f)afegpeare*£f  ^onntiH 

stance,  and  especially  as  to  the  character  of  their 
slightest  acquaintance,  the  Queen  retaining  her 
displeasure.  Lady  Southampton  would  be  even 
more  careful  than  her  husband  as  to  their  acquain- 
tance, whether  people  of  their  own  rank,  or  clients, 
or  of  indeterminate  standing  such  as  that  of  Shaks- 
peare  with  Lord  Southampton,  she  seeming  to  have 
felt  even  more  than  he  the  weight  of  the  Queen's 
anger.  A  letter  of  John  Chamberlain's  to  Dudley 
Carleton  is  to  the  effect  that  "the  newcoined 
Countess"  was  dismissed  with  much  contumely 
from  her  place  at  Court,  and  committed  to  "the 
best-appointed  lodging  in  the  Fleet"  prison,  as  the 
Queen's  answer  to  her  conduct.  {Diet,  of  Nat. 
Biography,  Art.,  Henry  Wriothesley.)  Lady  South- 
ampton's influence  over  her  husband  was,  no  doubt 
greater  than  that  of  Shakspeare.  The  poet's 
apparent  presumption  in  respect  to  a  Maid  of 
Honour  during  Lord  Southampton's  absence  from 
England  might  result,  first,  in  Lord  Southampton's 
attitude  of  reserve  towards  him,  and  then  in  the 
breach  of  their  friendship,  both  of  which  seem  to 
be  recorded,  or  distinctly  referred  to,  in  sonnets 
which  were  almost  certainly  written  at  this  time. 
Shakspeare's  original  acquaintance  with  the  Maid 
of  Honour — Lord  Herbert,  as  we  remember,  came 
to  the  Court  about  June,  1598 — would  not  have 


^f)afe£(peare*£f  bonnets;  51 

been  considered  important  by  Lord  Southampton, 
if  he  noticed  it  at  all,  who,  then  unmarried,  and 
having  returned  from  the  Azores  Expedition  not 
far  from  the  beginning  of  the  last  week  in  October, 
in  1597,  left  England  early  in  1598.  The  poet 
appears  to  have  declined  to  accept  anything  less 
from  Lord  Southampton  than  a  true  friendship. 
He  writes : 

No,  let  me  be  obsequious  in  thy  heart, 
And  take  thou  my  oblation,  poor  but  free, 
Which  is  not  mixed  with  seconds,  knows  no  art, 
But  mutual  render,  only  me  for  thee. 

Hence,  thou  suborned  informer!  a  true  soul  ■ 
When  most  impeached  stands  least  in  thy  control. 

Sonnet  CXXV. 

After  the  public  disgrace  and  dismissal  of  Mis- 
tress Fytton,  which  occurred  a  little  over  a  year 
later,  probably,  and  which  was  not  alleviated  by 
marriage,  the  consequences  to  the  actor-poet  with 
Lord  and  Lady  Southampton,  and  also  among  his 
more  valued  friends  at  Court,  would  certainly  be 
most  serious  if  he  was  known  to  have  been  involved 
and  if  such  consequences  occurred,  they  could  not 
fail  to  be  reflected  in  his  work.  We  approach  with 
some  diffidence  a  reading  of  these  plays  from  this 
point  of  view,  as  they  have  been  the  subjects  of  so 
many  varying  impressions  of  them,  not  including 


52  ^i)sikiptSLVt*9i  ^onnetfii 

this,  but  we  still  submit  some  tentative  suggestions 
as  to  several  of  them,  upon  the  foundation  of  an 
assumed  acceptance  of  the  Shakspeare-Herbert- 
Fytton  hypothesis.  The  first  shadow,  which  syn- 
chronizes closely  with  the  known  course  of  events 
in  the  lives  of  Lord  Southampton  and  Lord 
Herbert,  appears  in  As  Yon  Like  It  (1599),  but 
evidence  of  a  distinct  change  in  the  poet's  disposi- 
tion, and  of  a  change  not  lightly  to  be  accounted 
for,  is  found  in  AlVs  Well  That  Eyids  Well  and 
Measure  jor  Measure,  the  second  written,  the  first, 
it  is  understood,  rewritten,  with  a  new  title,  within 
the  years  immediately  succeeding  the  exposure  in 
1 60 1  of  the  Herbert-Fytton  scandal ;  the  first  seems 
to  go  so  far  as  to  allude  almost  openly  to  Lord 
Southampton,  and  it  reflects  also,  with  a  degree  of 
condemnation  very  unusual  in  representations  in 
the  theatre,  upon  the  failing  then  publicly  attached 
to  the  name  of  the  Earl  of  Pembroke,  the  one 
nobleman  being  at  the  time  confined  in  the  Tower 
of  London,  and  the  other  debarred  from  Court. 
The  two  plays,  as  will  be  at  once  admitted,  are 
unlike  their  predecessors  in  a  grave  and  critical, 
at  times  censorious  tone,  employed  upon  most 
caustic  elements  of  story;  coming  together,  when 
Shakspeare  was  in  the  full  tide  of  his  power,  they 
present  a  question  which  seems  to  call  for  an  an- 


^fjafesipeare's;  bonnets;  53 

swer.  We  notice  in  the  former  play,  in  a  scene 
especially  constructed  for  it,  doubtless  in  the  re- 
vision, the  appointment  of  Bertram  as  General  of 
the  Horse  (III,  iii,  i),  which  had  been  Lord  South- 
ampton's position  in  Ireland  until  he  was  -removed 
from  it;  he  was  appointed  "Lord  General  of  the 
Horse  in  Ireland"  by  warrant  dated  April  15,  1599, 
and  was  removed  from  the  position  in  the  follow- 
ing summer,  on  the  Queen's  reiterated  command 
much  to  his  and  Essex's  discomfiture.  In  mention- 
ing this,  Shakspeare  alluded  to  a  point  on  which 
Southampton  must  necessarily  have  been  sensitive. 
We  find  another  coincidence  in  the  reference  to  the 
size  of  the  army  in  Italy  in  the  play,  which,  doubt- 
fully said  to  be  twenty  or  twenty-one  thousand 
men,  is  that  of  Essex's  army  in  Ireland,  with  which 
Southampton  served,  excepting  an  increase  in  the 
proportion  of  Horse.  (IV,  iii,  151,  190.)  Camden 
says  of  the  army  in  Ireland  in  1599:  "His  army 
was  allotted  him  [Essex],  as  much  as  he  would 
desire,  neither  ever  saw  Ireland  a  greater,  16,000 
foot,  1300  Horse,  which  number  afterwards  in  all 
was  compleat  20,000."  {Annates,  trans.  Browne, 
vol.  2,  p.  239.)  We  notice  in  Bertram's  sell -will 
and  childishness  a  parallel  with  Southampton's 
character,  which,  as  is  well  established,  was  similar, 
and  in  both  respects.     It  is  clear  that  the  play 


54  ^tiafesfpeare'g  ^onnetjf 

contained  in  its  earliest  draught  Bertram's  status 
as  a  royal  ward,  as  that  is  an  essential  part  in  the 
original  Italian  story ;  it  is  equally  clear  therefore 
that  the  poet  must  have  chosen  at  the  time  of  re- 
vising the  draught,  in  1602  probably,  to  take  up  a 
draught  containing  a  structural  and  considerable 
likeness  to  the  career  of  Southampton,  he  having 
been  conspicuously  a  royal  ward  from  his  early 
boyhood.    This  resemblance,  when  it  is  read  in  the 
light  of  the  other  resemblances  in  the  play  already 
noted,  is  considerable  evidence  that  Shakspeare 
had  Southampton  in  mind  when  undertaking  the 
revision  of  the  play.    The  incident  of  the  wardship 
is  taken  from  the  story  of  Beltramo  and  Giletta  in 
The  Palace  of  Pleasure,  from  which  the  play  was 
devised.     Lord  Herbert,  also,  was  for  less  than 
three  months  a  royal  ward.    (Pembroke's  letter  of 
June  19,  1 60 1,  supra.)    The  probable  and  usually 
admitted  change  in  the  title  of  the  play,  from 
Loves  Labour's  Won  to  All's  Well 'that  Ends  Well, 
is  a  change  in  the  direction  of  this  understanding 
of  the  circumstances  under  which  the  play  was  re- 
written.   There  is  also  found  in  the  play  a  descrip- 
tion of  unbridled  license,  which,  if  it  were  a  cita- 
tion of  the  Earl  of  Pembroke  for  his  recent  and  then 
notorious  fault,  would  read  much  alike.     (IV,  ii; 
IV,  iii,  17-35,  248,  333;  Sonnet  XL,  13;  XCV,  6.) 


Bertram,  in  whom  these  incidents  are  united,  is  a 
strikingly  unworthy  character ;  if  the  poet  had  been 
so  far  humihated  as  to  show  his  resentment  against 
Southampton  for  his  injustice  and  desertion — and 
to  Lord  Southampton  the  final  sonnets  of  separa- 
tion were,  beyond  a  just  doubt,  addressed — and 
his  censure  of  the  viciousness  of  Pembroke,  he 
could  have  seen  in  this  play  as  complete  an  ex- 
pression of  those  sentiments  as  the  circumstances 
allowed. 

The  second  play,  Measure  for  Measure  (1603), 
contains  a  personal  allusion,  probably,  while  an 
estimate  of  this  play  is  much  aided  by  keeping  the 
author's  sense  of  injustice  done  to  him,  and  its 
probable  cause,  in  the  reader's  mind.  We  notice, 
for  instance,  the  Duke  as  a  detective  in  his  city, 
the  bitter  description  of  civic  corruption  (III,  ii, 
240;  V,  i,  318),  the  sexual  statute  enforced  against 
Claudio,  the  downfall  of  Angelo  through  Claudio's 
sister,  the  insistence  on  the  "seeming"  deception 
of  society  (I,  iii,  54;  II,  iv,  149;  III,  ii,  40,  41;  cf. 
Hamlet,  I,  ii,  76,  83),  some  lines  which  may  be 
thought,  perhaps,  to  have  a  personal  accent  (I, 
ii,  120-127;  I.  iv,  80-83;  III,  i,  5),  the  song  to 
Mariana  and  the  Duke's  admonition  as  to  her 
music  (IV,  i,  i,  14;  Sonnet  CXXVIII;  yl.  and  Cleo., 
II,  V,   i),  the  peculiar  allusion  to  "the  moated 


56  ^f\ak9iptavt*i  ^omtetflS 

grange"  as  the  "dejected"  Mariana's  residence, 
suggested  possibly  by  Mary's  residence  in  exile 
(III,  i,  27y) — Mariana,  we  observe,  is  an  addition 
by  the  poet  to  the  older  literature  of  this  story,  and 
the  similarity  of  the  name  to  Mary's  is  worth 
notice — and,  finally,  the  disregard  of  rank  in  the 
Duke's  marriage  to  Isabella;  the  incidents  of  the 
play  might  be  the  poetic  reflex  of  a  reverse  in 
Shakspeare's  life  in  1601,  and  the  tone  of  settled 
disillusionment  seems  to  have  been  retained, 
unbroken,  though  with  ultimate  modification, 
through  the  remaining  part,  the  more  serious  and 
grander  part,  of  his  dramatic  career. 

In  All's  Well  that  Ends  Well  (III,  v),  among 
the  neighbours  of  Diana  are  Mariana  and  the 
speechless  Violenta,  the  latter  name  taken  from 
William  Painter's  Palace  of  Pleasure,  but  the 
former  appears  again  to  be  the  poet's  selection. 

Mr.  William  Smith  in  his  History  of  Warwick- 
shire (1829),  mentions  a  circumstance  which  is  of 
not  a  little  interest  in  relation  to  Mary's  possible 
residence  after  leaving  the  Court.  He  says  (p. 
150),  "At  a  short  distance  from  Harbury  [Arbury] 
Park  is  a  farm  called  Temple  house.  The  building 
was  formerly  surrounded  by  a  moat,  and  in  the 
front  are  still  the  remains  of  a  lofty  painted 
[pointed]  window,  which  is  the  only  principal  relic 


ipfjafesipeare's;  ^onnetJf  57 

of  this  ancient  building."  It  is  conceivable  that 
Mary  was  lodged  here,  near  her  sister,  the  mistress 
of  Arbury,  after  returning  for  a  time  to  Gawsworth, 
her  father's  house  in  Cheshire,  as  it  seems  that  she 
did,  and  this  would  correspond  remarkably  with 
"the  moated  grange"  in  Measure  for  Measure. 
It  appears  that  Mary  went  to  Arbury  in  no  great 
length  of  time  after  leaving  the  Court;  she  was 
there  in  January,  1603  {Fytton  Letters,  ist  ed., 
pp.  42,  52,  55,  71,  72).  The  family  at  Arbury  then 
consisted  of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Newdigate  and  their 
three  young  children,  the  eldest  a  daughter  named 
after  Mary,  and  amusingly  called  "little  wasps- 
nest,"  and  nearly  five  years  old.  Mr.  Newdigate 
might  at  first  prefer  to  keep  a  certain  distance  be- 
tween Mrs.  Newdigate  and  the  children  and  their 
aunt.  A  little  further  evidence  in  support  of  this 
definition  of  the  "moated  grange"  can  be  also 
found.  Small,  moated  enclosures,  of  an  unpreten- 
tious type,  were  at  the  time  numerous  in  England, 
and  the  term  was  familiar  to  Shakspeare,  whose 
early  life  was  spent  in  Warwickshire.  In  a  paper 
on  The  Antiquities  of  Warwickshire  (1875),  Mr.  M. 
H.  Bloxham  says  (p.  9) : 

Ancient  British  and  Roman  fortifications  must  not 
be  confounded  with  those  numerous  moated  areas 
scattered  all  over  the  kingdom,  of  which  perhaps  there 


58  ^f)afe£!peare*fif  ^onnetjl 

are  not  less  than  lOO  in  this  county,  the  moats  of  which 
when  filled  with  water,  inclose  an  area  of  from  a  rood 
to  two  acres  in  extent,  and  these,  to  which  no  precise 
history  is  attached,  I  take  to  have  been  formed  for 
mere  defensive  operations  in  the  reigns  of  Stephen, 
John  and  Henry  III  in  the  intestine  wars  which  then 
prevailed. 

Shakspeare,  therefore,  probably  knew  these  con- 
structions. A  notice  of  Temple  House,  whose  moat 
was  perhaps  constructed  by  the  Knights  Templars, 
but  which  has  long  been  an  adjacent  and  doubtless 
subsidiary  building  to  Arbury  Hall  and  the  pre- 
ceding Priory,  will  be  found  in  Kelly's  Directory 
oj  Warwickshire  (1888),  where  it  is  mentioned  that 
(46) : 

Temple  House,  in  this  parish,  is  supposed  to  have 
formerly  belonged  to  the  Knights  Templars ;  it  is  now 
a  farm  house.  ...  The  manor  in  the  28th  of  Eliza- 
beth (1586),  passed  ...  to  John  Newdegate.  .  .  . 
Arbury  Hall  still  remains  in  possession  of  the  New- 
degate family. 

In  1 60 1,  when  Mary  left  the  Court,  her  sister  had 
been  in  residence  as  mistress  of  Arbury  about  six 
years.  On  the  Ordnance  Map  of  England,  Temple 
House  is  conspicuously  designated,  and  is  but  a 
half  mile  from  Arbury  Hall,  which  stands  in  an 
enclosed  Park  of  perhaps  300  acres.  Sir  William 
Dugdale,    in    The    Antiquities    of    Warwickshire 


(1656),  uses  the  word  "grange"  of  landed  prop- 
erty in  this  vicinity,  and  it  is  generally  so  used,  and 
mentions  a  grant  to  the  Knights  Templars  within 
the  parish,  Chilvers  Coton,  in  which  Temple  House 
is  situated,  in  the  reign  of  Henry  II  (p.  770) ;  it  is 
interesting  to  note  that  he  also  traces  the  title  of 
the  Newdigate  family  to  Arbury  from  the  heirs  of 
a  Duke  of  Suffolk  and  the  dissolution  of  the  monas- 
teries in  Henry  VIII's  time.  The  monastery  at 
Arbury,  Erdburie  Priory,  which  immediately  pre- 
ceded the  dwelling,  Arbury  Hall,  acquired  by  the 
Newdigates,  presumably  held  the  use  of  the  near- 
by building  of  the  Knights  Templars.  Aubrey,  in 
the  Seventeenth  century,  speaks  of  a  similar  use 
of  a  farm  house  by  a  monastery,  saying:  "The 
Manor  House,  (which  was,  I  think,  a  grange  to  the 
Abbey  of  Malmesbury),"  and  says  also,  interest- 
ingly for  Americans,  that  it  "was  for  the  greatest 
part  re-edified  by  Sir  Lawrance  Washington  about 
the  beginning  of  the  Civil  Wars"  (Aubrey's  Wilt- 
shire, Part  I).  The  Order  of  Knights  Templars 
was  discontinued  in  England  circa  1308,  in  the 
reign  of  Edward  II,  and  their  building  at  Temple 
House  had  therefore  been  turned  to  other  uses, 
chiefly  of  the  monastery,  for  nearly  three  cen- 
turies at  the  time  when  Mary's  residence  was 
determined  by  her  family.    It  seems  very  reason- 


6o  ^Ijafesfpcare's!  ^onneW 

able  to  suppose  that  the  term  "moated  grange" 
refers  to  an  enclosure  and  building  similar  to  that 
at  Temple  House,  as  it  was  probably  used  in 
Mary's  time,  and,  if  that  is  admitted,  Shakspeare's 
reference  to  such  a  grange  as  the  residence  of  the 
"dejected  Mariana"  is  in  language  which  corre- 
sponds with  this  peculiar  establishment  of  farm 
building  near  Arbury  Hall.  The  phrase  hardly 
applies  to  the  lady  in  the  play,  who  was  living  in  a 
city.  It  seems  clear  that  the  poet  went  so  far  as  to 
ascribe  to  Mariana  a  residence  which  is  inappro- 
priate to  the  circumstances  of  the  play.  On  the 
face  of  the  evidence,  the  inference  is  probable  that 
the  poet  had  some  thought  foreign  to  the  play  in 
his  mind  when  he  wrote,  "there  at  the  moated 
grange  resides  this  dejected  Mariana." 

Measure  for  Measure,  then,  contains  elements 
which  show  that  Shakspeare  had  changed  in  dis- 
position, and  a  phrase  in  the  play  suggests  also 
that  he  may  have  had  in  mind  the  exile  of  Mary 
Fytton. 

We  may  consider  this  influence  upon  Shaks- 
peare's later  plays  a  little  further.  The  two  plays 
just  commented  upon  are  but  slighter  works, 
written  while  producing  a  much  greater,  Hamlet 
(1602-3-4),  in  which  his  troubled  mind  is  repre- 
sented in  ghostly   imagery.     An  analysis  of  the 


^tafesfpearc's;  bonnets;  6i 

play  from  this  standpoint  leads  to  little  which  can 
be  verified  but  can  easily  be  carried  on  by  the 
reader,  who  will  find  that  it  brings  to  him  many 
suggestions  upon  the  text,  suggestions  which  will 
vary  probably  with  each  reader  who  attempts  to 
define  them.  The  personal  accent  is  remarkable, 
and  perhaps  gives  to  the  play  much  of  its  attrac- 
tion. From  our  standpoint,  Hamlet's  attitude  is 
one  of  irresolution  when  under  great  provocation. 
The  childish  sedition  of  Essex,  with  the  execu- 
tion of  Essex,  whom  the  poet  had  supported  with 
a  loving  tribute  during  the  campaign  in  Ireland, 
and  the  arrest  of  Southampton  early  in  1601,  and 
the  death  of  Shakspeare's  father  in  that  year,  as 
well  as  the  tragedy  of  Mary  Fytton,  had  each  a 
part  in  making  this  a  year  of  change.  Some  lines, 
written  for  Hamlet  but  afterwards  cancelled,  well 
express  the  dramatist's  altered  spirit: 

O  Time,  how  swiftly  runs  our  joys  away ! 

Content  on  Earth  was  never  certain  bred; 
Today  we  laugh  and  live,  tomorrow  dead. 

Q.  I,  Sc.  XIII,  42. 

Such  depression  differs  from  anything  we  see  in 
Troilus  and  Cressida  or  Twelfth  Night  or  Julius 
Ccesar  or  their  predecessors.  The  poet's  mind 
and  manner  changed  with  the  century.     The  ac- 


62  B>i^ak^ptaxt*si  ^mnttfi 

curacy  of  the  text  is  dubious,  but  the  sentiment 
of  the  Hnes  is  probably  authentic.  The  same  too 
pessimistic  sentiment  of  the  last  line  is  again  per- 
ceptible in  Measure  for  Measure  (III,  i,  5),  and  in 
Hamlet  (I,  ii,  129),  and  elsewhere  in  the  two  plays. 
An  allusion  in  Hamlet  to  the  critical  year,  1601, 
occurs,  perhaps,  in  the  scene  in  the  churchyard : 

By  the  Lord,  Horatio,  this  three  years  I  have  taken 

note  of  it;  the  age  is  grown  so  picked  that  the  toe  of  the 

peasant  comes  so  near  the  heel  of  the  courtier,  he  galls 

his  kibe. 

Q.  2  and  Folio,  V,  i,  i^o. 

If  this  reflection  is  dated  in  1604,  the  date  of 
the  second  Quarto,  its  unnecessary  but  definite 
specification  of  time  dates  back  to  the  year  of  the 
exposure  of  the  scandal,  1601.  The  poet  says  that 
for  three  years  he  had  had  occasion  to  notice  that 
the  age  was  so  critical  that  the  lower  pressed  on  the 
higher  orders,  a  limitation  of  time  which  is  com- 
prehensible if  we  think  that  during  those  three 
years  the  poet  had  been  censured  for  precisely 
that  disregard  of  rank,  or  for  presumption.  In  the 
preceding  Quarto,  the  first  Quarto,  the  phrase  is: 
"This  seven  years  I  have  noted  it, "  the  specifica- 
tion of  seven  years  being  perhaps  meant  for  any 
indefinite  period  of  time,  or  the  poet  perhaps  not 
caring  then  to  be  more  precise,  but  it  is  made  de- 


finite  in  the  second  Quarto.    It  is  difficult  to  rely 
on  the  first  Quarto,  but  the  second  is  of  primary 
authority.    In  the  following  incident  in  this  scene, 
it  is  certainly  a  fact  that  the  time  allotted  by  the 
grave-digger  for  the  jester,   Yorick's  interment, 
23  years,  is  the  age,  or  nearly  the  age,  of  Mary 
Fytton  in  1601,  when  she  was  sent  from  the  Court. 
This  period  appears  in  the  first  Quarto  as  "this 
dozen  year,"  and  in  this  instance  also  a  period 
indefinite  in  the  first  Quarto  is  made  definite  and 
particular  in  the  second.    There  can  be  no  reliance 
on  the  first  Quarto  in  such  a  matter  of  numerals, 
but  the  text  of  the  second  Quarto  is  fundamental ; 
Shakspeare  seldom  if  ever  uses  words  without 
meaning.    The  number  of  years  might  be  an  allu- 
sion to  the  day  of  his  birth,  the  23rd  of  April,  if 
the  23rd  is  the  exact  date,  or  to  something  else, 
but  if  we  take  into  consideration  the  immediately 
preceding  seeming  allusion  to  1 601,  and  possibly  to 
Mary  Fytton's  history  in  that  year,  the  inference 
is  not  without  reason,  and  the  point  has  a  corrob- 
orative value,  very  doubtful  as  the  evidence  is. 

To  carry  the  theory  a  step  further.  Subject  to 
the  exigencies  of  the  stage  and  to  his  dramatic 
genius,  lago,  in  the  next  play  (1604),  might  be  a 
figure  of  his  self-accusation  as  to,  and  implication 
in,  the  intrigue  and  its  result,  Othello  of  his  heart- 


64  ^i)aks;pcare'£i  bonnets! 

break.  It  was,  perhaps,  as  in  Hamlet,  his  deep, 
personal  interest  in  events  which  he  had  in  mind, 
which  gives  to  the  play  its  life-likeness  and  ab- 
sorbing interest.  Macbeth,  in  his  final  and  darker 
moments,  in  the  following  play  (1605),  might 
represent  his  cancelled  ambition,  and  the  empti- 
ness of  worldly  glory;  by  these  suggestions  and 
references  be  it  understood  merely,  that  the  springs 
of  some  of  the  words  and  delineations  of  these 
characters  could  be  attributed  to  his  connection 
with  the  unhappy  fate  of  Mary  Fytton.  This  is 
carrying  the  theory  a  great  way,  but  if  the  ascrip- 
tion of  his  sonnets  to  Mary  Fytton  is  once  ad- 
mitted, the  rest  follows,  as  we  are  inclined  to  think, 
almost  inevitably.  A  resemblance  of  the  "Dark 
Lady"  to  "Cleopatra"  (1607-8),  has  been  ven- 
tured by  Professor  Dowden. 

There  may  be  a  reminiscence  of  the  lady  of  the 
sonnets  in  the  following  passage : 

Whose  beauty  did  astonish  the  survey 
Of  richest  eyes,  whose  words  all  ears  took  captive. 
Whose  dear  perfection  hearts  that  scorned  to  serve 
Humbly  called  mistress. 

AlVs  Well  that  Ends  Well,  V,  Hi,  16. 

The  last  two  impassioned  lines  go  somewhat 
past  the  necessities  of  the  play;  in  truth,  the  two 
lines,  or  rather  line  and  a  half,  have  nothing  to  do 


^fjafegpeare'fi  bonnets;  65 

with  Helena's  precisely  contrary  experience.  The 
poet's  foredoomed  love-affair  with  Mary  Fytton, 
if  it  existed,  cannot  but  arouse  the  sympathy  of 
everyone  who  is  cognizant  of  the  strength  of  the 
affection,  and  can  estimate  the  corresponding  pain 
which  must  have  attended  its  hapless  result. 

The  past  few  pages  perhaps  illustrate  the  cus- 
tomary weakness  of  reading  one's  own  views  into 
the  works  of  the  great  dramatist,  but  the  references 
will  at  least  suggest  how  considerable  might  be 
the  result  in  Shakspearean  interpretation,  if  the 
hypothesis  as  to  Mary  Fytton  were  accepted. 

The  interpretation  of  Sonnets  CXVI-CXXVI 
and  some  others,  the  ascription  of  those  sonnets  to 
Lord  Southampton,  and  their  connection  with  the 
question  of  Shakspeare's  passion  for  Mary  Fytton, 
are  subjects  so  intertwined  and  extensive  that  they 
cannot  be  taken  up  here;  their  interpretation 
necessarily  involves  the  question  of  the  relation  of 
Shakspeare  to  Lord  Southampton,  and  therefore 
of  the  sonnets  as  a  whole  which  he  addressed  to 
that  nobleman. 

The  result  to  Shakspeare,  if  this  view  is  ad- 
mitted, seems  to  have  been  to  isolate  him  within 
himself,  that  is,  to  debar  him  from  familiar  asso- 
ciation with  the  friends  whom  he  most  enjoyed, 
and  from  all  such  openings  for  his  ambition  as, 
5 


66  ^ijafej^pearc'fii  bonnets 

through  them,  the  strife  for  position  at  the  Court 
might  present.  This  later  attitude  of  his,  some- 
times called  that  of  a  detached  critic  of  the  world 
he  lived  in,  has  been  often  observed.  In  his  earlier 
plays  this  is  not  so.  In  Love's  Labour  s  Lost  he 
was,  none  more  so,  frankly  a  part  of  the  Eliza- 
bethan world  about  him,  and  no  substantial  loss 
of  his  first,  fresh  enthusiasm  can  be  observed  until 
after  Much  Ado  about  Nothing  (1598-9).  His  life 
doubtless  was  always  single  and  individual,  but  it 
became  with  all  the  strength  and  armour  of  the 
mind,  peculiar  to  himself.  Perhaps  in  Measure  for 
Measure  his  detachment  first  receives  a  definite 
expression;  some  lines  in  the  scene  between  the 
Duke  and  the  Friar  (I,  iii,  i),  might  be  taken  as 
the  representative  portrayal  of  his  change  of  spirit, 
as  well  as  of  garment.  Twelfth  Night,  somewhat 
earHer  (i  599-1 600),  the  last  of  his  Comedies, 
received  his  finest  finish. 

To  sum  up,  in  their  main  outline,  the  facts  of 
this  abstract,  as  far  as  we  have  gone,  and  our  in- 
ferences from  them,  we  have,  at  the  commence- 
ment of  the  story,  Rosaline,  seeming  perhaps  as  a 
representation  drawn  from  life  (1597),  a  sonnet 
taken  from  her  description  and  written  to  a  lady 
resembling  her  in  dark  complexion  and  character, 
and  Mary  Fytton  then  at  Court,  then  others  of 


Shakspeare's  "Dark  Lady"  sonnets,  written 
perhaps  before  1599,  those  indicating  some  one, 
"my  sweetest  friend, "  supplanting  the  poet  in  his 
affection,  then,  probably  in  1599,  the  sonnets 
describing  the  writer  as  thus  distressed, 

Past  cure  I  am,  now  reason  is  past  care, 
And  frantic-mad  with  evermore  unrest. 

Sonnet  CXLVII. 

pleading  with  the  lady,  indicating  also  rejection, 
severance  and  self-questioning,  then  the  sonnets, 
separate  in  the  Quarto,  to  a  young  and  successful 
rival,  and,  at  the  end  of  the  story.  Lord  Herbert 
and  Mary  Fytton,  all  in  about  three  years,  from 
i^d  1597)  when  the  revision  of  Love's  Labour's 
Lost,  and  also  the  sonnet  taken  from  it,  were 
written,  to  mid  1600,  when  Mary  Fytton  made  her 
great  misstep. 


THE  ARBURY  PORTRAITS 

A  view  that  Mary  Fytton  was  fair  of  complexion, 
which  would  overthrow  the  theory  that  she  was 
the    "Dark    Lady"    of    the    sonnets,    has    been 


68  ^ijafesfpeare'ji  bonnets 

founded  upon  a  double  portrait,  on  panel,  of  two 
ladies  at  Arbury,  in  Warwickshire,  and  an  account 
of  the  picture  has  been  given  in  Lady  Newdegate's 
Gossip  from  a  Muniment  Room,  the  Fytton  Letters. 
Although  the  editor  of  the  Letters,  and  owner  or 
possessor  of  the  portrait,  has  the  advantage  of  an 
acquaintance  with  it,  some  suggestions  may  still 
be  advanced  upon  the  reproductions  of  that,  and 
of  a  second  portrait,  on  canvas,  which  accompany 
the  book.     {Frontispiece  and  at  p.  76.) 

The  portraits  are  said  to  be  of  the  sisters,  Anne 
and  Mary  Fytton,  the  double  portrait  being  of 
both  the  sisters  and  the  second  portrait  of  Mary 
alone.  While  Lady  Newdegate  states  her  view 
as  to  the  faces  and  expressions  of  the  two  ladies, 
though  her  opinion,  as  she  very  candidly  admits, 
is  not  wholly  free  from  doubt,  Mr.  C.  G.  O.  Bridge- 
man,  who  adds  an  Appendix  to  the  book,  depends 
mainly  upon  the  inscription  on  the  double  portrait, 
proving  its  accuracy  by  the  known  dates  of  birth 
of  the  Fytton  sisters,  the  inscription,  he  tells  us, 
stating  the  age  Of  each  of  the  ladies  accurately,  at 
the  time  of  painting  the  portrait.  This  accuracy 
does  not  meet  the  main  issue,  for  if  the  inscription 
were  a  subsequent  addition  to  the  portrait,  and  we 
think  that  this  is  clearly  demonstrable,  it  would 
follow  the  Parish  register,  or  other  record,  and  an 


The   Statues    of  Anne   {Left)  and  Mary  Fytton  (Right) 
in  the  Church  of  St.  James,  at  Gawsworth 


agreement  with  the  records  could  prove  nothing 
but  its  own  correctness  in  that  respect,  and  not  the 
time  when  it  was  placed  upon  the  portrait.     The 
identification  with  the  two  Fytton  sisters  is  not 
supported  by  any  likeness  to  each  other  of  the 
ladies  in  the  portraits,   and  it  becomes  wholly 
untenable,  as  to  Mary,  when  the  portraits  are  men- 
tally placed  beside  the  faces  and  figures  of  the  un- 
doubted statues  of  the  two  sisters  in  the  church 
at  Gawsworth,  while  the  two  other  elements  of 
internal  evidence  in  the  double  portrait,  the  inscrip- 
tion and  the  Fytton  pansy,  on  which  the  identifi- 
cation is  based,  prove,  on  examination,  to  be  very 
hazy  witnesses.     As  to  the  cardinal  question,  the 
appearance  of  the  two  ladies  in  the  double  portrait, 
we  cannot  see  in  the  faces  themselves  any  reason 
whatsoever  for  holding  that  the  lady  on  the  right, 
the  alleged  Mary  Fytton,   is  the  younger  of  the 
two,  nor  that  she  is  the  sister  of  the  lady  on  the 
left;  she  seems  to  us  to  be  decidedly  the  elder,  and 
there  is,  to  us,   no  family  resemblance  at  all  be- 
tween  them.     If  the  face  of  the  so-called  Mary 
Fytton  is  the  face  of  a  girl  of  fourteen  years  and  a 
fraction,  we  have  never  seen  another  like  instance, 
nor  do  we  think  it  is  credible  that  a  girl  of  those 
years  would  be  so  maturely  represented.     She  ap- 
pears to  us,  if  not  of  quite  as  old  a  face  as  that 


70  ^fjafesipeare's;  ^onnetsi 

given  later  in  Lady  Newdegate's  book  as  that  of 
the  high-bred  and  dignified  young  lady  in  the  mag- 
nificent Court  dress,  in  the  second  portrait,  still 
nearer  to  it  than  to  the  earlier  age.  The  absence 
of  any  family  resemblance  between  the  two  ladies 
is  confirmed  more  strikingly  if,  after  comparing 
the  lady  on  the  right  with  the  lady  on  the  left,  in 
the  double  portrait,  we  bring  into  the  comparison 
also  the  lady  in  Court  dress,  in  whom  this  differ- 
ence is  accentuated.  We  can  say  deliberately 
that  there  is  not  a  lineament  or  expression  in  these 
portraits  which  tends  to  show  a  relation  other  than 
that  of  mere  friendship  between  the  ladies,  and 
that  nothing  suggests,  in  the  likeness  of  the  lady 
on  the  right  in  the  double  portrait,  in  face,  bearing, 
jewels  or  dress,  the  early  age  of  fourteen  years. 

As  to  the  symbolic  evidence  of  the  flowers  and 
leaves  which  are  given  to  the  two  ladies  by  the 
artist,  it  is  said  that  two  of  the  flowers  are  dis- 
tinguishable as  pansies  in  the  double  portrait; 
in  the  photogravure  they  are  not  perfectly  deter- 
minable. The  pansy  was  an  heraldic  device  of  the 
Fyttons.  If  the  conspicuous  leaf  painted  on  the 
right  sleeve  of  the  lady  on  the  right,  called  Mary 
Fytton,  is  that  of  an  holly,  as  Mr.  Bridgeman  in 
his  careful  description  says  it  is,  it  modifies  the 
signification  of  the  pansy  held  by  the  lady  as  one 


among  her  other  flowers.  As  Mr.  Bridgeman  is 
silent  as  to  the  holly,  beyond  merely  mentioning 
it,  no  claim  is  made  for  the  Fyttons  of  the  holly  as 
an  emblem.  There  is  also  a  spray,  described  as 
resembling  a  palm,  on  her  left  sleeve.  That  also 
is  not  said  by  Mr.  Bridgeman  to  have  any  signifi- 
cance in  respect  to  the  Fyttons,  and  if  the  holly 
and  the  palm  are  considered  to  have  a  significance, 
as  they  certainly  have,  they  seem  to  denote  the 
lady  as  of  a  different  family.  The  pansy  has  an 
heraldic  intention,  but  its  significance  attached 
only  to  the  admitted  daughter  of  the  Fyttons 
Anne,  on  the  left,  on  whose  ruff  a  pansy  is  painted, 
not  at  all  to  the  other  lady  on  the  right,  who  merely 
holds  a  pansy  as  a  single  part  of  her  bouquet,  and 
probably  as  a  compliment  to  a  friend  and  hon- 
oured guest  at  Gawsworth.  There  is  further 
evidence,  and  it  is  perhaps  decisive,  from  these 
flowers.  Mr.  Bridgeman  says  of  the  lady  on  the 
left : ' '  On  her  ruff  is  painted  a  pansy. ' '  Mr.  Tyler, 
who  has  seen  the  original  portrait  at  Arbury,  says 
that  the  lady  on  the  right,  the  so-called  Mary 
Fytton,  has  a  "carnation  or  clove"  on  her  ruff. 
Mr.  Bridgeman  says  of  her:  "On  her  ruff  is  de- 
picted a  carnation."  Why  not  a  pansy,  if  the 
flowers  are  thus  painted  as  heraldic  devices,  and 
the  two  ladies  are  sisters  ?    The  deduction  from  the 


72  ^f)alt«peare'jf  bonnets; 

* 

leaves  and  flowers  is  contrary  to  the  theory  that 
the  lady  on  the  right  represents  the  younger  sister, 
and  is  in  favour  of  the  view  that  the  representation 
is  of  some  friend  of  the  family,  in  whose  bouquet  a 
pansy  was  placed,  and  this  accords  with  the  con- 
clusion derived  from  the  faces  of  the  ladies  as  to 
their  mutual  relation. 

To  go  a  step  further  in  estimating  this  floral 
evidence,  both  the  ladies  hold  in  their  left  hands 
flowers,  the  lady  on  the  right  her  bouquet,  and 
Anne  holding  a  carnation,  which  is  possibly  linked 
by  this  floral  symbolism  with  the  carnation  painted 
on  the  ruff  of  her  companion,  thus  denoting  again 
the  friendly  bond  between  them.  There  is  an 
evident  balance  in  the  floral  decoration,  Anne 
having  the  Fytton  pansy  on  her  ruff,  which  flower 
the  other  lady  holds  in  the  bouquet  in  her  left 
hand,  that  lady  having  a  carnation  on  her  ruff, 
which  flower  again  Anne  holds  in  her  left  hand. 
This  seems  rather  the  symbolism  of  friendship  and 
not  that  of  sisters.  Mr.  Bridgeman  has  apparently 
anticipated  this  point,  for  he  seems  to  claim  (p. 
1 68),  that  the  carnation  was  also  a  family  flower 
of  the  Fyttons,  but  the  evidence  which  he  brings 
forward  for  it  is  curiously  weak,  that  which  he 
cites  consisting  of  the  recurrence  of  a  carnation  in 
another  family  portrait  of  Anne,  taken  as  Lady 


Newdigate,  long  after,  with  an  infant  at  Arbury; 
the  recurrence  of  the  carnation  proves  nothing  of 
Mr.  Bridgeman's  contention,  but  only  that  her 
preference  for  carnations  still  existed,  the  flower 
occurring  as  an  ornament,  or  evidence  of  a  dis- 
position toward  them,  in  many  pictures  of  ladies. 
Rembrandt,  for  instance,  to  cite  one  out  of  endless 
examples,  frequently  uses  a  flower  in  this  way,  in 
his  portraits  of  ladies,  and  among  them  the  carna- 
tion; he  twice  depicts  his  wife,  Saskia,  holding  one. 
The  frontispiece,  called  "L'homme  aux  ceillets, " 
in  a  book  by  G.  Geffroy,  cited  further  on,  is 
another  example,  and  of  a  man.  So,  to  take 
another  instance,  Mildred,  Lady  Burghley,  in  a 
portrait  of  her  at  Hatfield  House,  holds  in  her  right 
hand  a  rose.  It  is  unnecessary  to  cite  further  in- 
stances to  prove  what  every  one  will  admit.  The 
heraldic  import  must  have  some  other  origin,  and 
is  not  proved  by  the  mere  use  of  a  flower  in  a 
picture.  There  is  no  heraldic  significance  in  the 
custom,  and  not  the  slightest  suggestion  in  it  that 
a  flower  is  especially  adopted  by  a  family.  It  is 
perhaps  worth  mention,  though  it  seems  very  fan- 
ciful, that  the  carnation  has  not  been  given  a  defi- 
nite meaning  in  the  language  of  flowers,  it  at  most 
sometimes  taking  the  place  of  the  rose,  according  at 
least  to  one  authority  {The  Floral  Symbolism  oj  the 


74  ^fjafegpeare's;  bonnets! 

Great  Masters,  by  Eliz.  Haig,  London,  1914).  But 
the  two  girls  might  see  a  meaning  for  themselves  in 
the  arrangement  of  the  flowers,  as  they  were  placed, 
and  so,  it  is  very  likely,  they  did.  The  evidence 
from  the  flowers  and  leaves,  then,  in  the  double 
portrait,  is  distinctly  contrary  to  the  theory  that 
the  ladies  in  the  portrait  were  sisters,  or,  both  of 
them,  members  of  the  Fytton  family. 

In  respect  to  the  jewels,  which  are  described  by 
Mr.  Bridgeman,  as  their  description  does  not  in- 
clude those  of  Mary  Fytton,  with  whom  alone  this 
Note  is  concerned,  no  attention  need  be  paid  to 
them  here,  except  to  mark  that  they  are  evidence 
of  the  wealth  of  the  family.  It  might  be  supposed 
that  the  younger  sister  would  have  been  allowed 
some  jewel  from  the  family  jewel-box  which  might 
be  recognized.  Though  her  sister's  jewels  are 
recognized,  and  are  connected  by  Mr.  Bridgeman 
with  jewels  in  other  pictures,  or  with  the  family 
jewels,  those  of  the  lady  on  the  right  are  not  at  all 
so  connected,  while  they  are  conspicuous,  espe- 
cially in  the  second  portrait,  and  therefore  they  seem 
to  have  been  separate  from  the  Fytton  jewels,  and 
denote  the  lady  as  of  another  family. 

The  inscription  on  the  double  portrait  is : '  'Etatis 
Sue  18.   Anno  Dom  1592.    Etatis  Sue  15,"  corre- 


^fjafesipeare's!  bonnets;  75 

spending  nearly  with  the  ages  of  Anne  and  Mary 
Fytton.  On  examining  the  inscription,  the  first 
impression  of  the  spectator  is  of  its  unusualness, 
the  labels  declaring  the  date  of  the  painting  and 
the  age  of  each  of  the  young  women,  from  which, 
as  this  is  a  family  portrait  intended  for  continual 
exhibition,  the  age  of  each  of  these  technically 
married  but,  in  some  degree,  still  free  and  unmar- 
ried girls  could  be  told  at  any  time,  by  any  casual 
visitor,  a  practise  contrary  to  the  custom  of  English- 
men, and  rarely  found  anywhere,  except  in  the  case 
of  ladies  of  royal  and  therefore  national  prominence. 
There  are  some  other  Sixteenth  century  portraits 
at  Arbury,  some  of  which  have  more  or  less  similar 
Latin  inscriptions;  all  are  called  collectively  the 
older  portraits.  Mr.  Bridgeman's  observations 
upon  these  Latin  inscriptions  are  as  follows : 

But  besides  these  Eighteenth  century  inscriptions, 
there  are  on  several  of  the  older  pictures  Latin  words 
and  figures,  giving  the  age  of  the  subject  of  the  portrait 
and  usually  also  the  year  in  which  it  was  painted;  and 
there  seems  no  reason  to  doubt  that  these  Latin 
inscriptions  are,  as  they  obviously  profess  to  be, 
contemporaneous ,  and  therefore  entitled  to  credit .  De- 
tails such  as  these  could  hardly  have  been  added  inno- 
cently by  a  later  generation;  if  not  contemporaneous 
they  must  be  a  deliberate  attempt  to  mislead ;  and  even 
if  so  improbable  an  hypothesis  could  be  entertained, 
it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  with  this  object  in  view 


76  ^fjafegpearc'j!  ^omtetJi 

any  one  would  adopt  so  subtle  a  device  as  to  give  the 
date  and  age  without  any  further  clue  to  the  name  of 
the  person  depicted.  .  .  .  This  picture  [the  double 
portrait],  bears  no  Eighteenth  century  inscription,  but 
at  the  top,  in  the  middle,  are  the  words  "Anno  dom 
1 592 ,"  in  the  left  corner ' '  Etatis  sue  1 8 ,"  and  in  the  right 
"Etatissue  15." 

Gossip  from  a  Muniment  Room;  Appendix. 


The  "subtle  device"  suggested  in  the  above 
quotation  appears  to  stray  from  what  is  probable. 
It  is  unnecessary  to  imagine  anything  of  such  a 
kind.  To  say  that  "there  seems  no  reason  to 
doubt"  these  inscriptions,  takes  for  granted  what 
is  contested,  and  applies  to  all  of  these  inscrip- 
tions what  may  not  be  true  of  them  all.  The 
period  of  an  inscription  has  been  occasionally  a 
matter  of  debate.  Most  of  the  inscriptions  on  the 
older  portraits  very  likely  were,  as  Mr.  Bridgeman 
states,  contemporaneous  with  the  portraits  on 
which  they  appear,  though  as  no  further  photo- 
gravure has  been  published  of  them,  there  is  no 
evidence  to  guide  us.  It  does  not,  however,  follow 
that  in  any  particular  instance  the  resemblance 
of  one  of  these  portraits  to  the  others,  in  bearing 
an  inscription,  cannot  be  set  aside,  and  the  time 
of  the  inscription  be  shown  to  be  later  than  the 
date  which  appears  upon  it.    Such  is  the  case  of 


Portrait  in  Court  Dress,  Claimed  to  be  of  Mary  Fytton 


the  double  portrait.  It  is  maintainable  that  a 
mistake  in  one  of  the  persons  represented  in  the 
double  portrait  was  made  by  the  subsequent 
owners  of  Arbury,  who  then  added  the  inscription 
to  it.  The  possibility  of  such  a  mistake  is  estab- 
lished beyond  cavil,  if  any  proof  of  it  can  be 
necessary,  by  the  attempt  made  at  Arbury  a 
century  later  than  the  indicated  attempt  with  the 
double  portrait,  that  is,  in  the  Eighteenth  century, 
to  identify  the  portraits  generally,  then  forming 
the  gallery,  when  many  mistakes  were  admittedly 
made,  one  of  them,  as  it  happened,  occurring  in 
one  of  the  two  portraits  now  in  question,  called  of 
Mary  Fytton,  that  in  Court  dress,  which  was  then 
labelled  as,  "Lady  Macclesfield,  3rd  daughter  of 
Sir  Edw.  Fitton,  Dame  of  Honour  to  Q.  Eliza- 
beth," a  lady  who,  as  Mr.  Bridgeman  admits, 
never  existed.  A  principle  of  evidence  is  put  for- 
ward by  Mr.  Bridgeman  in  the  course  of  his 
Appendix  (p.  166),  and  the  principle  is  valuable 
in  respect  to  the  evidence  which  is  necessary  to 
establish  the  contemporaneousness  of  the  inscrip- 
tion with  the  double  portrait,  that  as  several  of 
these  Eighteenth  century  inscriptions  are  inaccur- 
ate, it  would  be  unsafe  to  rely  on  the  Eighteenth 
century  inscriptions  where  they  are  not  supported 
by  independent  evidence.    The  like  principle  holds 


78  ^fjafegpcare'g  B>onmtsi 

true  of  the  inscription  on  the  double  portrait,  that 
if  it  shall  appear  that  there  is  cause  for  a  grave 
doubt  as  to  the  period  at  which  it  was  placed  on 
the  portrait,  its  contemporaneousness  with  the 
portrait  cannot  then  be  assumed,  but  must  be 
established  by  independent  evidence,  a  principle 
which  should  be  remembered  in  coming  to  a  con- 
clusion as  to  this  inscription.  The  date,  1768,  has 
been  decided  upon  by  Mr.  Bridgeman  as  that  of 
the  attempted  identification  of  the  portraits  at 
Arbury  in  the  Eighteenth  century.  The  time 
when  the  earlier,  and  also  mistaken,  identification 
of  the  double  portrait  might  have  taken  place,  and 
which  we  think  certainly  occurred,  and  when  the 
mistake  in  the  inscription  would  have  followed, 
might  be  the  time  of  the  Restoration,  and  the  fifty 
succeeding  years,  and  possibly  somewhat  later, 
though  hardly  earlier,  than  that.  There  is  no 
absence  of  a  sufficient  time  in  which  a  mistake 
in  the  identification  of  the  lady  on  the  right  in 
the  double  portrait  might  have  been  made. 

The  precedents  for  the  form  used  in  the  Latin 
inscriptions  at  Arbury  are  numerous,  and  must 
be  given  careful  consideration.  A  series  of  minia- 
tures by  the  younger  Holbein,  Nicholas  Hilliard 
and  others,  down  through  the  time  of  the  first 
Stewart  Kings,  is  still  extant,  and  these  artists,  at 


times,  wrote  on  their  miniatures  inscriptions  which 
have  a  perfect  resemblance  to  the  inscriptions  at 
Arbury,  giving  the  age  of  the  subject  of  the  minia- 
ture. Holbein  often  placed  upon  his  easel  por- 
traits such  inscriptions ;  other  artists,  coming  from 
the  Continent  and  then  painting  in  London,  also 
had,  on  occasion,  this  habit.  Holbein's  antece- 
dents— he  is  considered  usually  to  be  the  leader 
of  the  English  school  of  miniaturists,  and  he  was  a 
remarkable  painter  of  portraits — on  his  arrival  in 
England  in  1526,  at  the  age  of  thirty-one  years  or 
over,  had  been  of  Basel  and  still  more  of  the  im- 
perial city  of  Augsburg,  where  he  and  his  father 
and  his  father-in-law  and  perhaps,  though  doubt- 
fully, his  grandfather,  had  been  painters,  and 
where  he  had  probably  placed  an  inscription  of  the 
kind  on  a  portrait  several  years  before  his  arrival 
in  England.  {Holbein,  by  Ralph  N.  Wornum, 
passim,  pp.  48-99.)  How  far  this  unreticent  and 
unnecessary  habit  was  followed  by  native  easel 
portrait  painters,  as  it  was  in  miniatures  by  Hill- 
iard,  it  is  difficult  now  to  tell,  as  the  instances  are 
generally  inaccessible,  exhibitions  of  old  family 
portraits  by  artists  of  minor  ability  being  not  as 
common  as  those  of  the  contemporary  miniatures. 
Few  of  them  perhaps  have  survived  to  the  present 
day  as  has  the  double  portrait ;  the  double  portrait 


80  ^ijafegpeare's;  ^onncW 

shows  little  or  no  trace  of  Continental  influence. 
There  are  no  English  artists  of  the  Sixteenth 
century  mentioned  in  the  catalogue  (1901),  of  the 
National  Portrait  Gallery  in  London,  except  one 
or  two  miniaturists;  foreign  influence  was  at  that 
time  predominant  in  England.  Mr.  Wornum  ob- 
serves of  the  English  artists:  "Unfortunately 
what  our  own  Englishmen  were  we  do  not  know, 
but  some  of  the  respectable  portraits  of  the  period 
must  undoubtedly  have  been  their  work"  {ibid., 
p.  201).  The  same  view  appears  in  an  elaborate 
discussion  of  the  painters  of  this  period  in  the 
catalogue  (illustrated),  of  the  Burlington  Fine 
Arts  Club's  "Exhibition  of  Early  English  Por- 
traiture" (1909).  A  list  of  these  painters  will  be 
found  in  Anecdotes  of  Painting  in  England,  by 
Horace  Walpole  (Wornum's  ed.,  London,  1849, 
vol.  I,  p.  xxvii).  The  double  portrait  appears  to 
be  a  wholly  local,  perhaps  provincial  production, 
excepting  the  inscription.  Under  what  circum- 
stances the  inscription  was  placed  upon  the  double 
portrait  at  Arbury  it  is  impossible  to  say  positively, 
and  perhaps  it  will  be  better  to  wait  until  we  see, 
from  a  review  of  the  more  general  evidence  not 
connected  with  the  picture,  what  are  the  probabili- 
ties as  to  its  date,  rather  than  attempt  any  final 
decision  here.     If  the  tendency  of  the  other  evi- 


^f)akiptavt*si  bonnets;  8i 

dence  is  to  show  that  the  double  portrait  does  not 
contain  a  portrait  of  Mary  Fytton,  we  are  quite  at 
liberty  to  believe  that  the  inscription  upon  it  was 
not  placed  upon  it  at  the  time  when  its  date  indi- 
cates, but  rather  at  a  later  period.  We  should, 
however,  first  examine  the  accessible  evidence 
bearing  directly  upon  the  inscription  before  leaving 
it,  and  see  whether  it  may  not  in  itself  present  a 
degree  of  doubt  as  to  its  contemporaneousness  with 
the  double  portrait. 

Upon  a  miniature,  as  much  less  public  than  an 
easel  portrait,  the  inscription  of  date  and  age  had  a 
something  personal  and  familiar  to  recommend  it, 
and  was  not  so  plainly  open  to  objection  as  when 
on  an  easel  painting,  though  the  practise,  of  which 
Holbein's  are  perhaps  the  earliest  surviving  in- 
stances in  England,  has  not  been  continued.  As 
miniatures  bearing  inscriptions  of  this  kind  have 
been  extensively  exhibited,  catalogued  and  de- 
scribed, and  are  therefore  easier  of  access  than 
family  portraits  of  native  origin,  their  inscriptions 
can  be  studied  with  some  approximation  to  thor- 
oughness; if  it  appears  that  such  an  inscription  as 
that  on  the  double  portrait  was  seldom  used  even 
on  a  miniature,  that  circumstance  will  cast  a  shade 
of  doubt  upon  the  contemporaneousness  of  the 
inscription  with  the  double  portrait. 


82  ^fjafesipeare'g  bonnets; 

Before  entering  upon  this  intricate  matter,  how- 
ever, we  will  pause  over  a  distinct  question,  the 
seeming  superfluity,  not  so  much  of  flowers  as  of 
leaves,  in  the  double  portrait,  considered  as  the 
portrait  of  the  two  Fytton  sisters,  that  is,  of  the 
obtrusive  plant  and  leaf  emblems  on  the  sleeves 
of  the  so-called  Mary  Fytton,  and  inquire  besides 
whether  there  was  anything  peculiar,  not  to  easel 
but  to  miniature  art,  a  practise  which  might  be 
fancied  to  be  separate  from  the  art  of  easel  por- 
traits, to  account  for  their  presence.  Inscriptions 
of  date  and  age,  unlike  floral  decoration,  were  a 
temporary  and  recent  addition  to  the  painter's  art, 
having  been  in  use  in  1592,  as  far  as  we  have 
noticed,  about  ninety-two  years.  On  a  miniature 
of  Queen  Elizabeth  by  Hilliard,  now  in  the  Na- 
tional Portrait  Gallery,  London,  the  inscription  is : 
"Anno  Dni  1572,  ^tatis  Suae  38."  There  is  also 
a  crown  with  the  letters  "E.  R.,"  and  on  the  left 
shoulder  is  a  white  rose,  symbolical,  no  doubt,  of 
the  Virgin  Queen;  if  the  rose  were  originally  a 
white  and  red  Tudor  rose  it  would  denote  the 
Queen's  family.  A  considerable  number  of  minia- 
tures, bearing  this  or  a  similar  inscription,  may  be 
found  in  the  collections.  The  inference  is  plain, 
and  when  reflecting  upon  the  peculiar  inscriptions 
on  the  portraits  at  Arbury,  certainly  worth  ex- 


amination,  that  the  inscription  at  Arbury  followed 
the  lettering  upon  some  easel  portrait  or  miniature 
of  that  type.  Its  resemblance  to  the  inscription  on 
the  miniature  is  obvious.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  inscription  resembles  in  its  terms  the  mul- 
titudinous class  of  inscriptions  which  figured  upon 
current  easel  portraits  and  miniatures  in  the 
Sixteenth  and  Seventeenth  centuries,  though  in  its 
appearance,  the  arrangement  of  its  lettering,  it 
being  more  like  a  separate  record  or  label,  less  like 
a  part  of  the  picture,  as  inscriptions  were,  more  or 
less,  usually  made  to  be,  it  is  a  little  different  from 
any  inscription  which  the  writer  has  happened  to 
observe.  Precedents  may  be  found  for  it,  but  it 
seems  unlike  most  of  the  inscriptions  of  its  date, 
and  this  is,  perhaps,  an  important  point.  It  is 
perhaps  worth  more  attention  than  the  writer,  who 
is  not  at  present  near  the  European  galleries,  can 
give  to  it. 

The  flowers  and  leaves  introduced  into  the 
double  picture  had,  on  the  other  hand,  no  particu- 
lar origin  in  miniature  art,  but  in  the  general 
principles  of  the  art  of  both  miniatures  and  easel 
portraits.  Embellishments  of  such  a  kind  are 
introduced  in  miniatures,  when  they  occur,  just 
as  in  other  branches  of  Art,  to  meet  the  personal 
and   special   conditions  or  wishes  of  the  subject 


§4  ^ijafesipcare's!  ^onntt^ 

represented.  An  examination  of  the  principal 
books  upon  miniatures  will  disclose  comparatively 
few  instances  in  which  leafage  or  flowers  were  in- 
troduced, and  in  each  of  those  cases  it  is  evident — 
as  in  the  unique  and  well-known  miniature  of  Mrs. 
Pemberton,  represented  as  holding  a  leaf — that 
the  flower  or  leaf  was  introduced  for  separate  and 
individual  reasons,  as  it  would  be  in  any  larger 
painting,  and  not  in  pursuance  of  any  fashion  of 
embellishment  peculiar  to  miniature  art,  there  not 
being  the  least  sign,  in  the  great  array  of  miniatures 
illustrated  or  described,  of  the  existence  of  any 
special  fashion  of  the  kind.  Flowers,  indeed,  were, 
for  some  reason,  perhaps  of  taste,  perhaps  because 
of  their  excessive  minuteness,  or  perhaps  rather 
as  the  result  of  a  preference  for  jewels,  relatively 
little  used  in  miniature,  or  much  less  than  one 
might  expect  in  these  "pictures  in  little."  A 
recent  collection  of  miniatures,  that  of  the  late 
John  Pierpont  Morgan,  has  been  so  elaborately 
catalogued  that  statistics  can  be  given  of  the  use 
of  flowers  in  the  miniatures  of  the  time,  within  the 
limits  of  that  collection.  The  catalogue,  vol.  i 
(1906),  extending  generally  over  the  Sixteenth 
and  Seventeenth  centuries,  and  listing  about  175 
miniatures,  exhibits  only  about  eight  instances — of 
which  two  are  of  gold,  and  one  is  painted  with 


golden  leaves — of  the  use  of  flowers  as  embellish- 
ments of  the  dress  or  head-dress  of  the  subject  of 
a  miniature,  showing  that  fashion  did  not  tend  in 
miniature  painting  toward  ornament  by  flowers. 
Single  leaves  are  used  hardly  anywhere,  hardly  in 
any  kind  of  painting,  except  in  heraldry;  the  in- 
stance cited  of  Mrs.  Pemberton's  miniature  is  the 
only  one  we  happen  to  have  met  with  or  can  recall. 
In  using  the  flowers  and  the  leaves  in  the  double 
portrait,  the  artist  acted  of  his  own  motion  and 
quite  independently,  that  is  to  say,  under  the 
general  custom  of  artists,  and  not  under  any  par- 
ticular habit  or  tendency  of  miniaturists  in  that 
direction.  On  an  easel  portrait  we  know  that 
flowers  have  been  used  from  the  beginning  as 
ornaments,  as  in  truth  they  have  on  miniatures, 
and  also  that  this  practise  has  not  the  remotest 
connection  with  the  transient  custom  of  inscrip- 
tions. 

The  introduction  of  the  leaves  and  flowers,  then, 
was  probably  due  to  some  special  request  for  them 
by  the  two  ladies  themselves,  and  certainly  the 
lady  on  the  right  has  a  strange  variety  of  them  for 
a  daughter  of  the  Fyttons,  whose  devices  are  not 
said  to  include  the  holly  and  the  palm,  in  addition 
to  the  pansy.  If  it  should  be  urged  that  those 
devices  might  have  included  all  three  of  these 


86  ^fjafegpcarc's!  ^onnetJJ 

symbols,  it  can  be  answered  that  in  that  case  the 
lady  would  be  quite  unnecessarily  and  too  much 
marked  by  them,  and  especially  so  for  a  younger 
daughter.     The  two  symbols  on  her  sleeves,  if 
they  have  any  meaning  at  all,  and  a  meaning  they 
must  have  had  for  her,  establish  her  not  as  Mary 
Fytton   but   almost    certainly   as   a   member   of 
another  house.     They  were  placed  there  by  the 
painter,  a  little  awkwardly  as  we  see,  by  the  lady's 
wish,  and  seemingly  to  distinguish  her  family  from 
that  of  the  Fyttons  whose  pansy  she  carried  in 
her  bouquet.    The  presence  of  the  two  leaves,  the 
holly  and  the  palm,  in  the  absence  of  any  evidence 
to  contradict  their  testimony,  goes  a  great  way 
toward  proof  that  the  lady  on  the  right  was  not  the 
younger  daughter,  Mary  Fytton,  but  a  distinct 
person,  and  not  a  member  of  the  house  of  Fytton. 
Anne's  residence  at  the  time,  and  the  migration  of 
the  portrait  with  her  from  her  girlhood's  home  at 
Gawsworth  to  Arbury,  will  be  noticed  in  another 
place. 

What,  then,  should  we  think  of  the  crucial 
problem  of  the  Arbury  portraits,  the  question  of 
the  true  date  of  the  inscription  on  the  double  por- 
trait; whether  that  it  was  attached  at  the  time 
when  the  portrait  was  painted,  or  that  it  was  added 
at  a  later  period  ?   We  have  seen  that  there  is  more 


^f)afesfpearc*£f  bonnets;  87 

than  one  reason  to  doubt  that  the  lady  on  the  right 
represents  a  younger  sister  of  the  lady  on  the  left, 
which  casts  of  necessity  the  like  doubt  upon  the 
date  of  the  inscription.  The  inscription  on  the 
portrait  is  in  the  precise  words  used  by  miniaturists 
and  the  painters  of  larger  portraits  not  only  then 
but  for  more  than  half  a  century  afterwards, 
through  the  first  half  and,  to  some  extent,  still 
later  in  the  Seventeenth  century.  Miniatures 
with  this  inscription,  though  of  a  departed  fashion, 
existed  in  relatively  considerable  numbers  at  the 
termination  of  the  Seventeenth  century,  as  did  the 
more  important  easel  portraits,  and  this  style  of 
inscription  was  familiar  to  all  persons  interested 
in  them,  while  at  Arbury  itself  there  were  several 
easel  portraits  bearing  it  and  frequently  seen  by 
the  owner.  An  elucidation  of  the  evidence,  impal- 
pable as  an  historical  hypothesis  necessarily  is, 
may  be  hazarded;  it  can  never  be  proved,  but  it 
still  corresponds  exactly  with  the  condition  in 
which  the  portraits  are  now  found.  We  may  infer, 
then,  from  what  we  have  already  ascertained  as  to 
the  double  portrait,  that  not  only  the  second  or 
single  portrait,  but  also  the  double  portrait  was, 
when  it  was  painted,  without  an  inscription,  and 
that  in  the  time  of  the  Restoration,  perhaps  of  the 
Revolution  or  of  Queen  Anne,  the  owner  of  Arbury, 


88  ^i}a}xfiptaxt'i  ^omtetsl 

Sir  Richard  Newdigate,  the  honourable  and  patri- 
otic Judge,  or  perhaps  his  widow  or  his  descendant, 
wishing  to  make  permanent  their  understanding 
of  the  two  pictures,  perhaps  hesitating  over  Mary's 
name  already  legendary  and  unsuited  to  any  dis- 
play on  a  family  portrait,  and  thinking  the  double 
portrait  to  be  a  portrait  of  the  two  sisters,  chose  to 
follow  the  recently  disused  Latin  form  of  identify- 
ing portraits,  which  habitually  left  the  name  un- 
stated and  a  matter  of  inference,  which  already 
existed  on  the  other  older  portraits  at  Arbury,  and 
which  was  appropriate  to  a  portrait  of  its  time, 
and  that  they  used  it  on  the  double  portrait  only, 
leaving  the  second  and  single  portrait  in  Court 
dress  wholly  unlabelled,  considering  that  to  be  of 
the  same  person  as  was  the  lady  on  the  right  in  the 
double  portrait,  and  deeming  any  further  identifi- 
cation of  it  neither  necessary  nor  desirable.  That 
the  second  Sir  Richard  Newdigate,  presumably  a 
son  of  Judge  Newdigate  who  died  in  1678,  was 
interested  in  the  family  genealogy  in  1 686  appears 
from  a  note  to  Mr.  Bridgeman's  Appendix  to  Lady 
Newdegate's  book,  at  page  i  y2.  This  interest  may 
have  been  connected  with  family  litigation  be- 
tween two  other  branches  of  the  Fytton  descend- 
ants, but  it  existed,  and  shows,  in  the  nature  of 
Sir  Richard's  observation,  the  frequent  shortness 


of  family  memory  in  respect  to  even  immediate 
connections,  if  such  connections  were  not  members 
of  the  same  household  or  of  the  same  neighbour- 
hood. We  disregard,  of  course,  the  inscription 
placed  in  the  Eighteenth  century  upon  the  single 
portrait. 

It  seems  quite  plain  that  only  by  some  such 
hypothesis  of  a  subsequent  addition  of  the  inscrip- 
tion, can  the  divergence  of  the  inscription  from  the 
double  portrait  itself  be  explained,  for  the  inscrip- 
tion, which  seems  to  refer  to  the  two  Fytton  sisters, 
is  not  confirmed  in  the  details  of  the  portrait,  nor 
by  the  likenesses  of  the  two  ladies  themselves.  We 
should  reflect,  also,  that  there  was  no  period  in 
1592,  the  date  inscribed  on  the  portrait,  when  the 
girls  could  be  called  accurately  18  and  15  years  old 
respectively,  as  Mary's  fifteenth  birthday  did  not 
come  until  June,  1593;  the  mistake  in  the  inscrip- 
tion would  be  more  likely  to  come  in  a  subsequent 
identification  of  the  picture  than  at  the  time  when 
it  was  painted. 

There  is  no  noticeable  difficulty  in  the  theory 
that  the  inscription  was  subsequent  to  the  portrait, 
that  it  was  mistaken,  and  that  it  was  placed  on  the 
portrait  at  the  end  of  the  Seventeenth,  rather  than 
at  the  end  of  the  Sixteenth  century.  Perhaps  an 
objection  could  be  made  to  the  selection  by  the 


90  ^fjafesipeare'js  ^onnetJS 

subsequent  owner  of  a  particular  year,  1592,  as 
the  date  for  the  picture.  Still,  an  owner  wishing  to 
establish  some  date,  as  he  very  properly  would  wish 
to  do,  and  we  know,  too,  that  the  other  older  por- 
traits at  Arbury  were,  for  the  most  part,  dated, 
might  venture  to  approximate  to  it,  for  it  cannot 
be  far  from  correct  in  respect  to  Anne,  who  was  to 
him  the  principal  person  in  the  picture.  She  was 
his  respected  ancestress,  while  the  unfortunate 
Mary  was  less  than  no  one,  a  blot  in  the  family 
pedigree.  No  year,  as  the  present  writer  views  the 
picture,  will  reconcile  the  known  ages  of  the  two 
Fytton  sisters  with  the  apparent  ages  of  the  two 
girls  in  the  double  portrait,  because  if  the  date  is 
postponed  to  suit  Mary's  likeness,  it  becomes  too 
late  for  her  sister.  If  he  chose  the  year  when  Anne 
was  eighteen,  which  corresponds  well  with  her 
appearance  in  the  portrait,  he  might  decline  to 
consider  the  supposed  and  unvalued  Mary  at  all, 
noticing  merely  her  mature  appearance  by  giving 
her  the  greatest  possible  age  consistent  with  the 
age  he  had  first  selected  for  Anne,  and  calling  her 
fifteen  instead  of  the  fourteen  and  a  half,  or  a  little 
over,  which  was  her  age  at  the  end  of  1592.  He 
probably  would  not  be  interested  in,  or  curious  or 
careful  as  to  her,  indeed  the  contrary  rather,  and 
would  prefer  to  consider  Anne  alone,  in  dating  the 


picture.  Perhaps  the  story  of  Anne's  Hfe-long 
faithfulness  to  her  sister  had  some  connection  with 
the  origin  and  strength  of  the  belief  that  the  lady 
with  her  in  the  portrait  was  her  sister,  Mary  Fyt- 
ton.  Nothing,  however,  is  more  certain  in  respect 
to  this  portrait  than  that  some  one  erred  in  the 
inscription,  and  whether  our  attempt  to  explain 
the  condition  of  the  picture  is  in  accordance  with 
common  probability  and  the  frequent  forgetful- 
ness  and  uncertainty  of  families  as  to  old  portraits, 
or  not,  the  error  was  one  which  would  more  prob- 
ably be  made  by  a  subsequent  owner,  bent  upon 
identifying  the  portrait,  than  by  the  people  in- 
terested when  the  portrait  was  painted.  The  date 
of  Anne's  baptism  is  6th  October  1574,  Mary's 
24th  June  1578.  Mary  became  fifteen  years  of  age 
on,  or  near  to,  June  24th,  1593,  not  1592.  It  is 
contrary  to  the  commonest  experience  to  think 
that  such  a  mistake  as  that  would  be  made  when  a 
formal  family  portrait,  as  this  would  have  been  if 
it  had  been  of  the  two  sisters,  was  painted,  and  the 
ladies  whose  portraits  were  taken  were  present. 
Mr.  Bridgeman  has  noticed  this  weakness  in  the 
inscription,  as  his  interpretation  of  the  inscription 
is  too  strained  to  be  admissible  for  a  moment,  and 
shows  how  difficult  he  has  thought  a  defence  of  the 
inscription  in  this  direction  to  be.    His  understand- 


92  ^t)ak£(peare'£;  ^ormttfi 

ing  of  the  inscription  is  that  the  figures,  i8  and  15, 
mean  that  the  girls  were  then  not  eighteen  and 
fifteen  years  old,  but  in  their  eighteenth  and 
fifteenth  years  respectively.  It  is  a  forlorn  hope  to 
ascribe  to  an  inscription  a  meaning  which  is  con- 
trary to  common  sense,  the  common  meaning  of 
language,  and  all  precedent.  If  the  painter  in- 
tended by  his  inscription  to  convey  to  the  reader 
that  the  ladies  were  in  their  eighteenth  and 
fifteenth  years,  he  wrote  it  in  terms  which,  accord- 
ing to  the  customary  use  of  language,  have  no 
relation  to  his  intention  and  convey  a  different 
impression.  Eighteen  and  fifteen  mean  in  the  in- 
scription what  they  mean  in  every  legal  document 
and  in  every  common  conversation,  that  is,  the 
attainment  of  those  ages.  The  painter  did  not  say 
what  Mr.  Bridgeman  suggests  that  he  said. 

It  is  perhaps  worth  while  to  add  also,  as  it  brings 
out  the  error  in  the  inscription  more  strikingly  by 
showing  its  extent,  that  it  is  unusual  to  state  as  a 
lady's  age  one  at  which  she  has  not  yet  arrived. 
Mr.  Bridgeman's  limitation  of  the  time  within 
which  the  inscription  was  so  peculiarly  written,  to 
the  period  between  June  and  October  in  1592, 
makes  this  lapse  from  the  common  conventionality 
happen  in  the  case  of  both  sisters,  that  is,  if  the 
painter  meant  what  he  wrote,  as  we  are  bound  to 


^i^aksiptavt'si  ^mntisi  93 

believe  that  he  did.  If  the  painter  added  the  in- 
scription when  Mr.  Bridgeman  supposes  him  to 
have  done  so,  that  is,  between  Anne's  birthday 
and  Mary's  birthday,  or  between  October  and  June 
in  1592,  both  the  girls'  ages  would  be  anticipated 
by  the  artist,  Anne's  by  a  little  time,  but  Mary's 
by  from  eight  and  a  half  to  twelve  months,  a  pro- 
ceeding which  would  hardly  be  accepted  by  the 
families  of  the  young  ladies,  and  still  less  by  them- 
selves.   Mr.  Bridgeman's  explanation  is: 

Anne  Fitton  was  baptized  at  Gawsworth,  6th  Octo- 
ber, 1574,  Mary  Fitton  24th  June,  1578,  so  that,  if  the 
picture  was  painted  between  the  months  of  June  and 
October,  1592,  their  ages  would  exactly  correspond 
with  those  given  on  the  picture,  one  being  then  in  her 
eighteenth,  the  other  in  her  fifteenth  year. 

Gossip  from  a  Muniment  Room.    Appendix. 

This  is  a  pure  assumption  that  the  painter  of  the 
portrait  took  an  unusual  course,  and  also  one  that 
would  be  ambiguous  and  misleading,  in  stating  the 
ages  of  the  two  young  ladies.  The  inscription  is 
in  the  ordinary  form,  and  it  presumably  has  the 
ordinary  meaning,  and  there  is  no  reason  whatever 
why  it  should  be  supposed  that  it  was  intended  to 
be  understood  otherwise.  It  is  impossible  to  follow 
Mr.  Bridgeman  when  he  says  (p.  169),  that  the 
probability  that  the  portrait  is  of  two  sisters  is 


()4  ^f)afe£fpeare*s!  ^onnti^ 

confirmed  "by  the  exact  correspondence  of  the 
age  of  the  younger  girl  as  recorded  on  the  picture, 
with  that  of  Mary  Fitton  in  1592."  It  would  be 
nearer  the  fact  to  say  that  this  probability  is  much 
lessened  by  the  unquestionable  inaccuracy  of  the 
inscription  in  this  respect;  such  correspondence, 
as  Mr.  Bridgeman  terms  it,  is  not  that  which  is 
usual,  nor  would  it  be  tolerable,  in  the  record  of  a 
family  portrait.  Mr.  Bridgeman's  silence  as  to  this 
view  of  the  inscription  shows  the  extent  of  his 
difficulty. 

The  testimony  of  the  inscription  itself,  then,  is, 
we  have  reason  for  holding,  contrary  to  the  theory 
that  it  was  a  part  of  the  picture  in  1592,  and  this 
testimony  is  supported  by  the  appearance  of  the 
ladies  themselves  in  the  portrait,  and  by  several  of 
its  details.  It  will  be  admitted,  on  looking  over  the 
evidence  collected  in  various  parts  of  this  Note, 
that  the  further  indirect  testimony,  which  can  be 
brought  against  the  contemporaneousness  of  the 
inscription  with  the  picture,  is  worth  much  con- 
sideration; the  evidence  for  it  appears  to  be  no 
more  than  its  presence  on  the  picture,  and  its  long 
and  unquestioned  acceptance  by  the  owners  of 
Arbury. 

Before  leaving  this  phase  of  the  inscription,  it 
should  be  observed  that  the  legend  inscribed  on 


the  portrait  which  forms  the  frontispiece  of  Lady 
Newdegate's  book,  stating  Mary's  age  as  15,  is  not 
only  not  justified  by  the  inscription,  but  that  it  is 
not  supported  even  by  Mr.  Bridgeman's  construc- 
tion of  it. 

To  enter  now  upon  the  question,  whether  the  in- 
scription is  found  commonly  on  miniatures,  or  on 
family  portraits,  it  is  particularly  worth  consider- 
ing whether  any  artist,  even  a  miniaturist,  had  he 
worked  on  the  picture,  would  have  made  ascer- 
tainable, and  at  any  period,  and  by  any  casual 
visitor,  these  young  women's  ages,  through  their 
permanent  and  semi-public  portrait,  at  the  time  of 
its  painting.  We  think  it  next  to  impossible  that 
this  should  have  been  done,  and  we  will  examine, 
therefore,  the  record  of  inscription  writing  to  de- 
termine whether  painters,  by  any  possibility,  were 
in  the  habit  of  making  inscriptions  of  this  kind. 
The  question  is  worth  an  examination,  for  if  we 
should  see  that  the  inscription  was,  if  not  contrary 
to  any  consciously  defined  rule,  at  least  not  cus- 
tomary and,  in  practise,  very  unusual,  that  would 
go  some  distance  toward  proving  that  the  inscrip- 
tion was  a  subsequent  addition  to  the  double 
portrait. 

It  is  true  that  one  or  both  of  the  sisters  had 


96  ^taksipeare's;  ^tmntti 

been,  at  the  time,  technically  married,  but,  living  at 
home,  and  subject  only  to  a  childhood  contract  of 
marriage,  which  seems  in  the  case  of  the  younger, 
if  it  existed,  to  have  been  disapproved  and  broken 
off,  and  in  the  case  of  the  elder,  to  have  not  been 
carried  out  until  some  years  after  the  double 
portrait  had  been  painted,  they  should  be  regarded 
as  if  still  free  and  unmarried  girls,  that  is,  for  the 
purposes  of  the  inscription,  as  in  respect  to  their 
future,  practically,  and  subject  to  the  direction  of 
their  parents,  they  still  remained. 

The  records  show  that  an  inscription  of  the  kind 
was  but  seldom  placed  upon  miniatures,  and  that 
there  is  no  similar  and  certain  case,  so  far  as  we 
are  aware,  among  easel  portraits,  excepting  in  royal 
circles.  If  it  proves  to  have  been  exceptional  upon 
the  more  familiar  form  of  the  miniature,  an  in- 
ference must  arise  against  its  contemporaneous- 
ness with  the  double  portrait,  and  if  no  clear  and 
certain  instance  of  it  appears  among  easel  portraits, 
that  inference  must  be  greatly  strengthened.  It 
should  be  admitted,  at  the  outset,  that  the  ques- 
tion of  the  existence  of  any  such  rule  for  the  por- 
traits of  young  ladies  as  is  suggested,  is  not  free 
from  evident  difficulty,  much  confusion  inhering 
in  the  evidence,  consisting  as  it  does  of  a  multitude 
of  unrelated  and  independent  instances,  of  which 


often  no  knowledge  survives  but  what  they  them- 
selves afford.  The  substantial  unanimity,  under 
these  difficult  circumstances,  of  the  records  ex- 
amined is  surprising,  when  it  is  considered  that  this 
was,  after  all,  only  an  instinctive  and  habitual, 
and  not  at  all  an  enforced  rule,  there  being  an 
almost  entire  absence  from  the  examined  records 
of  clear  and  unmistakable  instances  similar  to  the 
double  portrait,  and  not  so  frequent  instances  as  to 
which  a  doubt  will  arise  as  to  make  them  impor- 
tant through  their  number. 

In  miniatures,  an  assured  precedent  for  the  in- 
scription is  very  rare;  we  have  happened  to  find 
in  the  records,  so  far  as  we  have  seen  them,  only 
one  which  is  certain;  there  are  a  few  which  are 
uncertain.  There  are  precedents  of  royal  minia- 
tures, and  also  of  royal  easel  portraits,  but  in  those 
cases  the  age  of  the  lady  might  be  considered  to  be 
so  publicly  known  as  to  make  the  inscription  in- 
different to  the  lady  as  well  as  of  interest  to  the 
public.  It  is  not  possible,  desirable  as  it  is,  to  make 
a  statement  of  all  the  evidence  given  by  miniatures, 
no  complete  description  of  them  existing  and  we 
will  restrict  ourselves,  therefore,  to  the  books  at 
hand.  An  analysis  of  vol.  i  of  the  Morgan  cata- 
logue of  miniatures,  mentioned  hitherto,  in  which 
each  miniature  is  carefully  described,  and  as  to 


98  ^f)akiptaxe*9i  ^onneW 

which  exact  statistics  can  be  had,  gives  the  follow- 
ing examples  only  of  miniatures  with  the  complete 
inscription  of  the  date  of  the  miniature  and  of  the 
then  age  of  the  subject,  such  as  that  on  the  double 
portrait,  and  from  which  the  age  of  the  person 
represented  can  be  at  any  moment  told: 

Mary,  Queen  of  Scots,  by  an  unknown  artist,  (p.  45).  Inscrip- 
tion: Maria  Scotomm  Regina,  1565,  Aetat.  XXIII. 

Lady  Hunsdon,  by  N.  Hilliard,  (p.  26):  Ano  Dm  1576,  Eais 
suae  25. 

Countess  of  Pembroke,  by  N.  Hilliard,  (p.  35):  Ano  157  (?) 
Aet.  29. 

Earl  of  Sussex,  by  N.  Hilliard  (p.  39):  Ano  Dm  15  (?)  Aetatis 
suae  36. 

Mary,  Queen  of  Scots,  by  N.  Hilliard,  (p.  29):  Anno  Dom  1581, 
Aetatis  suae  (?). 

Lord  Brooke,  by  Isaac  Oliver,  (p.  54):  Ano  Dm  1588,  Aetatis 
suae  22. 

Gentleman,  the  artist  unknown,  (p.  73):  Anno  Domini  1588, 
Etatis  suae  19. 

Sir  H.  Fanshawe,  by  Isaac  Oliver,  (p.  61) :  Ano  Dm  1608,  Acta.  43. 

Anne,  Queen  of  James  I,  by  Isaac  Oliver,  (p.  59):  Ano  Dm  1609, 
Aetatis  suae  28. 

Earl  of  Essex,  by  Isaac  Oliver,  (p.  52):  Aetatis  suae  (?)  1614. 

Rhys  Griffiths,  by  Isaac  Oliver,  (p.  56):  Ano  Domi  1617, 
Aetatis  suae  55. 

Lady,  the  School  of  Oliver,  (p.  68):  1619  (?)  Aet.  28  (?). 

Earl  of  Somerset,  by  Peter  OHver,  (p.  67):  Aetat.  (?)  A.  D.  1623. 

Gentleman,  by  L.  Hilliard,  (p.  63):  Ano  Dni  1640,  Aetatis  suae 

75  (?). 
Duke  of  Berwick,  by  the  younger  Hoskins,  (p.  86):  engraved 
inscription  on  the  reverse,  Aet.  29,  1700, 

No  case  appears  in  the  list  of  a  young  girl  whose 
miniature  is  inscribed  as  in  the  double  portrait, 


though  the  system  of  inscribing  miniatures  then 
was  at  its  height.  As  the  matrimonial  status  of 
the  lady  in  the  miniature  of  1619  is  not  known,  the 
instance  is  doubtful;  the  numerals  upon  it,  given 
by  Dr.  Williamson,  the  editor  of  the  catalogue,  are 
not  perfectly  decipherable. 

The  age  of  the  subject,  but  omitting  the  date  of 
the  painting,  appears  sometimes  upon  a  miniature, 
and  is  less  objectionable : 

Arnold  Franz,  by  Holbein,  (p.  7):  Aet.  32. 

Mrs.  Pemberton,  by  Holbein,  (p.  8):  Anno  Etatis  suae  23. 

The  date  of  the  miniature,  but  not  the  age  of  the 
subject,  occurs  often: 

Lady,  by  Levina  Teerlinc,  (p.  21):  Ano  Dm  15  (?). 

"La  Belle  Sourdis,"  by  N.  Hilliard,  (p.  31):  Ano  Dm  1577. 

La  Princesse  de  Conde,  by  N.  Hilliard,  (p.  33):  1597. 

To  these  last  succeeds,  in  the  general  history  of 
miniatures,  the  unended  series  in  which  the  date 
alone  of  the  miniature  is  given. 

Dr.  George  C.  Williamson's  History  of  Portrait 
Miniatures  (1904),  names  a  very  great  number  of 
them,  but  they  necessarily  are  not  always  described 
individually,  as  in  his  more  limited  editing  of  the 
Morgan  catalogue,  many  being  grouped,  and  men- 
tioned by  name  and  place  only,  and  exact  statis- 
tics of  these  cannot  therefore  be  given ;  the  greater 


loo  ^\}ak^ptaxt'si  ^onneW 

part  of  them,  no  doubt,  have  appeared  in  the  ex- 
hibition catalogues.  The  general  inference  from 
them  is  the  same  as  that  from  the  Morgan  collec- 
tion, and  no  certainly  young  and  single  lady,  in 
private  life,  is  mentioned  in  the  book,  and  her 
miniature  described,  whose  age  is  defined  as  in  the 
double  portrait.  Instances  from  Dr.  Williamson's 
book  which  border  on  relevance  to  the  inscription 
on  the  double  portrait  are: 

The  wife  of  Nicholas  Hilliard,  by  him  (vol.  i,  p.  17). 
An  attractive  miniature  of  his  wife,  more  valuable 
through  its  exact  labelling,  with  the  inscription 
in  a  circle  around  the  frame:  "Alicia  Brandon 
Nicolai  Hilliardi  qui  propria  manu  depinxit  uxor 
prima  Ano  Dni  1578  Aetatis  suae  22,"  and  the 
initials  N.  H. 

Mrs.  Holland,  Maid  of  Honour  to  Queen  Elizabeth,  by 
Isaac  Oliver  (p.  32) :  Aetatis  suae  27. 

The  Elector  Palatine  and  his  family  by  Alexander 
Cooper  (p.  78).  A  series  of  twelve  royal  minia- 
tures, showing  the  dates  of  painting  and  also  the 
ages  of  the  individuals.  Dr.  Williamson  says  of 
them  that  they  belong  to  the  German  Emperor, 
and  that  "They  are  a  series  of  circular  miniatures, 
each  set  in  an  enamel  frame  and  folding  one  over 
the  other."  He  also  says:  "at  the  back  of  each 
portrait,  in  the  same  coloured  enamel,  is  the  name 
and  age  of  the  person  whose  portrait  is  contained 
in  the  disc,  and  the  date  (also  recorded)  when  it 
was  painted.    ...     In  the  centre  of  the  series 


is  the  portrait  of  Frederick  V.,  Elector  Palatine, 
and  afterwards  King  of  Bohemia,  inscribed: 
Frederick  R.  B.  Aet.  36,  16  August  1632.  By 
his  side  is  a  portrait  of  his  wife,  Elizabeth,  daugh- 
ter of  James  I  of  England:  Elizabeth  R.  B.  Aetat. 
36,  9  August  1632,  the  famous  Queen  of  Hearts." 
The  remaining  miniatures  of  the  series,  all  simi- 
larly inscribed,  represented  the  ten  children  of 
the  royal  pair,  four  of  them  daughters.  Of  the 
youngest,  Sophia,  Aetat.  2,  14  Octobris  1633, 
"we  have  no  portrait,  and  this  is  peculiarly 
unfortunate,  as  to  Englishmen  she  is  the  most  inter- 
esting of  the  series,  for  after  flirting  with  a  Portu- 
guese grandee,  an  Italian  duke,  a  Swedish  prince, 
and  her  cousin  Charles  of  England,  she  married  the 
Elector  Ernest  of  Hanover,  and  became  the  ances- 
tress of  the  Hanoverian  sovereigns,  and  of  the  dyn- 
asty which  now  occupies  the  throne  of  England." 

In  another  of  Dr.  Williamson's  publications, 
How  to  Identify  Portrait  Miniatures  (1904),  is  an 
illustration  of  two  little  girls,  aged  respectively 
four  and  five  years,  whose  ages  are  inscribed,  with 
the  date  of  painting.  The  four  princesses,  daugh- 
ters of  the  Elector  Palatine,  and  the  miniature  of 
Queen  Elizabeth  in  the  National  Portrait  Gallery, 
hereinabove  mentioned,  are  excepted  by  the  royal 
station  of  the  ladies  from  the  custom ;  besides  these, 
the  instances  noticed  in  the  books  so  far  cited  of  a 
portrait  miniature  of  any  young,  unm.arried  lady, 
giving  at  once  the  date  of  painting  and  the  lady's 


102  ^JjKksipeare'jS  ^onnetiS 

age,  are  the  uncertain  case  in  1619,  in  the  Morgan 
collection,  of  an  unknown  lady  a^ed  twenty-eight, 
whose  marriage  is  not  stated  or  ascertainable,  and 
the  case  just  mentioned  of  the  two  little  children 
still  in  their  infancy. 

So  far  as  the  question  before  us  can  be  decided 
from  the  three  books  referred  to,  the  case  against 
the  inscription  on  the  double  portrait,  that  it  was 
contrary  to  the  common  practice  of  miniaturists, 
and  therefore  still  less  to  be  expected  upon  an  easel 
portrait,  has  little  opposition,  but  by  going  further 
afield  a  few  difficult  miniatures  have  been  found 
which  it  is  necessary  to  examine.  Some  other 
books  consulted  are  by  Dr.  Williamson,  Dr.  Pro- 
pert,  Joshua  J.  Foster  and  Dudley  Heath;  some 
catalogues  have  also  been  examined,  namely: 
"Early  English  Portrait  Miniatures  in  the  Collec- 
tion of  the  Duke  of  Buccleuch,"  Montague  House 
(in  The  Studio,  191 7) ;  "The  Welbeck  Abbey  Minia- 
tures belonging  to  his  Grace  the  Duke  of  Portland" 
(in  the  fourth  annual  volume  of  the  Walpole  So- 
ciety, 1914-15);  Catalogue  of  an  Exhibition  of 
Miniatures  by  the  Burlington  Fine  Arts  Club 
(London,  1889);  and  the  Miniature  section  in  a 
catalogue  of  an  Exhibition  of  Early  English  Por- 
traiture, by  the  same  Club  (London,  1909). 

The  perhaps  single,  clear  exception,  and  one  to 


^f)afes!peare*£f  ^onnetfl(  103 

which  allusion  has  already  been  made,  an  exception 
unique  in  the  books  examined,  to  the  observance 
that  unmarried  ladies,  not  in  the  royal  circle, 
should  not  have  their  ages  coupled  with  the  date 
of  painting  and  placed  upon  their  miniatures, 
occurs  in  a  list  mentioned  by  Mr.  Foster  in  one  of 
his  volumes.  Miniature  Painters,  British  and  For- 
eign, vol.  i,  p.  34  (London,  1903),  thus:  "Mrs. 
Holland,  Maid  of  Honour,  dated  1593,  Aetatis 
suae  26,"  by  Nicholas  Hilliard. 

This  miniature,  as  it  happened,  was  followed  in 
the  next  year  by  one  by  Isaac  Oliver  of  the  same 
lady,  with  an  abbreviated  inscription,  and  made  in 
comparison  unobjectionable  by  the  omission  of  the 
date,  "Aetatis  suae  27."  There  is  no  illustration 
or  description  in  Mr.  Foster's  volume  of  the  earlier 
of  the  two  miniatures,  but  it  is  probably  that  illus- 
trated by  Dr.  Proper t  in  his  History  of  Miniature 
Art  (1887),  on  the  plate  facing  page  58.  The 
later  miniature  is  illustrated  by  Dr.  Williamson,  in 
his  History  of  Portrait  Miniatures,  Plate  XH  and 
page  32.  Each  is  an  interesting  miniature.  The 
reflection  at  once  necessarily  occurs  that  there  may 
have  been  a  mistake  about  the  earlier  inscription, 
as  it  can  hardly  have  been  placed  on  the  miniature 
with  the  young  lady's  understanding  or  by  her 
wish;  at  all  events,  it  was  not  repeated  on  the 


104  fefjafesipeare's;  ^onnetia; 

second  miniature.  Unquestionably,  the  precedent 
is  unlikely  to  attract  a  young  lady  of  today,  who 
might  wish  to  make  use  of  a  miniature  of  herself 
among  her  friends.  A  third  miniature,  called  of 
Mistress  Holland,  and  again  by  Nicholas  Hilliard, 
which,  if  of  the  same  lady,  was  taken  much  later, 
and  probably  after  marriage,  and  when  she  had 
become  Lady  Cope,  will  be  found  in  the  Morgan 
catalogue,  vol.  i,  PI.  XIX  and  p.  39;  this  has  no 
inscription.  To  illustrate  more  particularly  the 
distinction  between  the  two  classes  of  inscription : 
in  the  catalogue  of  the  Burlington  Fine  Arts  Club 
of  1909,  two  miniatures  ascribed  to  Holbein  and  of 
royal  ladies  are  mentioned;  one  is  of  Queen  Jane 
Seymour,  inscribed,  "An.  XXV"  (p.  114),  and  the 
other  of  Queen  Katherine  Parr,  inscribed,  "Ano. 
XXXH"  (p.  117);  neither  is  dated,  and  they  are 
irrelevant  to  the  double  portrait,  the  ladies  being 
neither  unmarried  nor  in  a  private  station,  but 
they  aid  in  illustrating  the  point  that  an  inscription 
in  the  limited  form  placed  on  the  second  miniature 
of  Mistress  Holland,  and  of  those  of  the  two  Queens 
has  not  the  inconvenience  and  unfitness  of  the 
inscription  placed  on  the  earlier  miniature  of 
Mistress  Holland,  nor  of  that  on  the  double 
portrait,  for  as  the  date  of  the  miniature  is  omit- 
ted, a  continuous   statement   is  avoided  of   the 


^fjafegpeare's;  ^onneW  105 

precise  age  at  any  future  moment  of  the  lady 
represented. 

In  addition,  a  few  doubtful  miniatures  appear  in 
the  catalogues,  and  they  need  careful  and  studious 
attention.  To  the  catalogue  of  the  Duke  of  Buc- 
cleuch's  miniatures  is  annexed  a  catalogue  of  an 
exhibition  of  miniatures  at  the  Victoria  and  Al- 
bert Museum,  in  which  the  following  instances  are 
mentioned  of  the  miniatures  of  unknown  ladies: 

"A  Lady  unknown,  in  her  i8th  Year.     Dated  1592."     By 

Nicholas  Hilliard  or  Isaac  Oliver. 
"A  Lady  unknown,  in  her  19th  Year,  Represented  as  Lu- 

CRETIA.    Dated  1608."    By  Nicholas  Hilliard. 
"A  Lady  unknown,  in  her  52ND  Year.    Dated  1572."     By 

Nicholas  Hilliard. 

These  seem  to  be  mentioned  among  the  Welbeck 
Abbey  miniatures,  in  the  catalogue  of  that  collec- 
tion at  pages  34  and  35,  without  further  informa- 
tion as  to  them  except  that  the  lady  described  as 
Lucretia  is  holding  a  dagger.  Lucretia  is  men- 
tioned in  Shakspeare's  poem,  then  much  in  vogue, 
as  the  wife  of  Collatinus;  a  young  spinster  might 
take  it  upon  herself  to  represent  the  injured  lady, 
but  the  portrait  is  at  least  as  likely  to  be  of  a  lady 
who  was  herself  married.  The  incident  was  fre- 
quently represented  in  portraits  at  that  time.  The 
miniature  of  a  lady  in  her  eighteenth  year  is  per- 


io6  ^fjafesfpeare'g  ^onmtsi 

haps  that  mentioned  with  a  slight  variation — 
there  being  frequently  difficulty  in  reading  the 
inscriptions,  the  date  being  1572  instead  of  1592 — 
in  the  Burlington  Fine  Arts  Club's  catalogue  (1909) 
of  Early  English  Portraiture,  at  page  124,  the 
description  of  the  miniature  being  otherwise  the 
same.  Let  us  admit  them  to  be  distinct  miniatures. 
The  instance  of  the  lady  aged  fifty-two  years  may 
be  disregarded,  as  she  had  passed  beyond  the  age 
to  which  the  rule  applies. 

In  the  extensive  catalogue  of  the  miniatures  ex- 
hibited by  the  BurHngton  Fine  Arts  Club  in  1889, 
is  an  entry  on  page  130: 

"  Portrait  OF  A  Lady.  Dated  1600.    Aetatis  23." 

No  further  information  appears  in  the  catalogue 
in  respect  to  this  miniature.  The  extent,  therefore, 
of  the  questionable  instances  among  miniatures, 
found  in  the  books  and  catalogues  hitherto  cited, 
and  in  some  slight  degree  contravening  a  presumed 
recognition  in  the  Sixteenth  and  Seventeenth  cen- 
turies of  a  reticence  founded  on  natural  sentiments, 
and  which  would  at  the  present  day  be  generally 
respected,  is  five,  of  unknown  ladies  aged  18,  18, 
19,  23  and  28.  The  uncertainty  as  to  these  minia- 
tures deprives  them  of  clear  value  as  evidence;  the 
probabilities  as  to  them  depend  upon  the  ultimate 


^fjafesfp care's;  bonnets!  107 

answer  to  the  proposed  question,  whether  there 
was  in  fact  a  habit  of  courtesy  in  existence  in  re- 
spect to  the  miniatures  and  larger  portraits  of 
young  and  unmarried  ladies;  if  there  was  such  a 
custom,  then  the  miniatures  were  more  probably 
inscribed  in  accordance  with  it,  and  were  of  young 
matrons.  It  has  been  said  that  marriage  was  at 
that  period  customarily  earlier  than  it  is  now,  and 
less  often  omitted.  We  will  leave  the  question 
then  as  to  these  unidentified  miniatures  in  sus- 
pense, to  look  further  into  the  practice  of  the  art- 
ists of  the  time ;  the  remarkable  absence  from  the 
records  of  a  class  of  identified  miniatures  of  young 
ladies  clearly  opposing  the  custom  is  of  too  much 
weight  to  be  negatived  by  a  few  uncertain  minia- 
tures, doubtful  as  one  or  two  of  them  may  seem  to  be. 
Since  writing  the  preceding  pages,  two  further 
catalogues  have  come  to  our  hands,  and  they  will 
be  noticed  now  separately,  the  "Catalogue  of  the 
Special  Exhibition  of  Portrait  Miniatures  on  loan 
at  the  South  Kensington  Museum,  June,  1865," 
extending  to  3081  examples,  and  the  illustrated 
"Catalogue  of  a  collection  of  Miniatures  in  Plum- 
bago, etc.,"  lent  by  Francis  Wellesley,  Esq.,  Victoria 
and  Albert  (South  Kensington)  Museum  (London, 
191 5).  The  latter  interesting  catalogue  contains 
nothing  open  to  question,  though  it  has  several 


io8  ^Jjaligpeare'g  ^onneW 

inscriptions,  but  the  former  adds  two  to  the  num- 
ber of  unknown  young  women  whose  miniatures 
bear  both  their  ages  and  the  date  of  the  painting ; 
on  the  other  hand,  it  adds  no  further  instance  to 
the  first  miniature  of  Mistress  Holland,  which  ap- 
pears in  its  pages.  This  catalogue  adds  also  a  child 
of  five  years  and  a  girl  of  six  to  the  instances  of 
the  two  little  girls  of  four  and  five  years  old,  whose 
miniatures  were  inscribed  with  date  of  painting 
and  their  ages,  as  already  noticed.  The  examples 
of  miniatures  of  unidentified  young  women  are: 

Page  99.    "  Portrait  of  a  Lady,  dated  Anno  1600,  Aetatis  23," 

by  an  unknown  artist. 
Page  179.     "Portrait  of  a  Lady  in  a  Close  Cap  and  Small 

Ruff.     Inscribed  Ano  Dni  1575,  Aetatis  suae  25,"  by  an 

unknown  artist. 
Page  238.     "Portrait  of  a   Lady.     Aetatis  Suae  20.     Ano 

Dni  1587,"  by  an  unknown  artist. 

Of  these,  the  first  has,  no  doubt,  been  mentioned 
already  from  the  Burlington  Club's  catalogue  of 
1889,  but  the  second  and  third  have  not,  and  may 
be  either  the  miniatures  of  young  wives  or  of  spin- 
sters. The  current  of  the  evidence  is  so  decided, 
however,  toward  establishing  the  existence  of  the 
common  custom  as  to  the  portraits  of  spinsters,  as 
will  appear  to  any  searcher  through  the  extensive 
books  and  catalogues,  that  the  miniatures  of  this 
uncertain  kind  can  be  tentatively,  at  least,  as- 


^^afe£fpeare*£f  ^mntti  109 

sumed  to  be  the  miniatures  of  married  ladies,  or 
else  to  be  exceptions  to  the  common  practice.  The 
two  children's  miniatures  listed  in  the  catalogue 
are: 

Page  186.     "Portrait  of  a  Child  in  a  Richly  Quilted  Dress, 

WITH  THE  Inscription:  Anno  Dni   1578,  Aetatis  5,"  by 

Nicholas  Hilliard. 
Page   240.     "Margarita   Gonzaga.      Inscribed:     Margarita 

Gonzaga,  Annorum  VI,  XIII  Maii,  MDLXXI,"  by  Paolo 

Veronese. 

The  first  of  these  is  of  unstated  sex,  but  the 
second  is  of  an  additional  little  girl,  whose  minia- 
ture has  been  given  an  especially  complete  inscrip- 
tion. The  inscriptions  for  feminine  children,  Hke 
those  for  ladies  past  the  age  of  courtship,  depart 
from  the  strictness  of  the  convention,  and  indicate 
the  limits  of  the  customary  courtesy.  Such,  and 
no  more,  are  the  difficult  instances  of  miniatures 
which  have  been  found  in  the  books  and  catalogues 
cited. 

Turning  from  miniatures  to  easel  or  family  por- 
traits, our  search  through  a  representative  selection 
of  the  books  and  catalogues  likely  to  contain  evi- 
dence, has  discovered  but  few  cases  of  doubt  as  to 
the  observance  of  the  rule  of  courtesy  to  unmarried 
ladies,  and  no  identified  and  certain  infraction  of  it. 
The  fashion,  alike  unnecessary  and  inconvenient 


no  ^tjaiijipeare's;  ^onmisi 

in  practice,  of  inscribing  on  the  front  of  a  portrait 
the  age  of  the  person  represented,  commenced,  as 
far  as  we  have  noticed,  with  the  first  year  of  the 
Sixteenth  century,  and  continued  through  the  cen- 
tury and  thereafter  for  the  greater  part  of  the 
Seventeenth  century;  it  began  to  fade  during  the 
Commonwealth,  and  died  out  almost  wholly  dur- 
ing the  reign  of  Charles  11.  A  considerable  num- 
ber of  the  existing  portraits  bear  inscriptions  of 
this  kind,  either  of  the  age  of  the  subject  joined 
with  the  date  of  painting,  or  of  the  age  of  the  sub- 
ject and  having  the  date  of  the  painting  omitted. 
A  list  of  the  books  and  catalogues  examined  is : 

TEXT-BOOKS 

Raphael,  by  Crowe  and  Cavalcaselle.    (London,  1882-5.) 

Titian,  by  the  same  authors.     (London,  1877.) 

History  of  Painting  in  North  Italy,  by  the  same  authors;  2d  ed. 
(London,  1912.) 

Italian  Painters,  by  G.  Morelli.    (London,  1892-3.) 

Notes  on  the  Brera  Gallery  at  Milan,  by  Charles  Locke  Eastlake 
(1883.) 

Notes  on  the  Royal  Gallery  at  Venice,  by  the  same  author.     (1888.) 

Holbein,  by  Ralph  N.  Wornum.     (London,  1867.) 

Anecdotes  of  Painting  in  England,  by  Horace  Walpole;  ed.  R.  N. 
Wornum.      (London,  1849.) 

Tour  of  a  German  Artist  in  England,  with  Notices  of  Private  Galler- 
ies, by  Johann  David  Passavant.     (London,  1836.) 

Treasures  of  Art  in  Great  Britain,  by  Dr.  Gustav  Friedrich  Waagen. 
(London,  1854.) 

Les  Musees  d'Europe;  Berlin,  the  Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum,  by 
Gustave  Geflfroy,    (Paris,  1910.) 


^ijafesipeare's!  bonnets;  iii 

CATALOGUES 

The  National  Gallery.     (London,  1899.) 

The  National  Portrait  Gallery.     (London,  1901.) 

The  Burlington  Fine  Arts  Club;  Exhibition  of  Early  English 

Portraiture.     (London,  1909.) 
Musde    National    du    Louvre.     Notice    des    Tableaux    exposes; 

ficoles  d'ltalie,  Ecoles  d'Espagne,  Ecoles  AUemande,  Fla- 

mande  et  HoUandaise,  et  Ecole  Frangaise,  par  FrM6ric  ViUot. 

(Paris,  1872.) 
The  Louvre;  Italian  and  Spanish  Schools,  by  the  Vte  Both  de 

Tauzia.     (Paris,  1885.) 
Description  raisonn^e  des  Peintures  du  Louvre.    Tome  I,  ficoles 

fitrang^res,  Italie  et  Espagne,  par  Seymour  de  Ricci.    (Paris, 

1913.)     The  further  volumes  of  this  catalogue  if  they  have 

yet  been  published,  have  not  been  accessible. 
Exhibition  by  the  Alsace-Lorraine  Society  at  Paris.     (Nearly  600 

pictures.     1874.) 
The  UflSzi  Gallery.     (Florence;  C.  Rigoni,  1886.) 
The  Gallery  of  the  Pitti  Palace.     (Florence;  E,  Chiavacci,  1875.) 
Siena;  Accademia.     (1872.) 
Venice;  Accademia  di  Belli  Arti.     (1885.) 
The  same  Gallery,  by  A.  Conti.     (1895.) 
Modena;  Reale  Galleria  Efetense.     (1854.) 
Bologna;  Reale  Pinacoteca.    (1883.) 
Milan;  Palazzo  di  Brera,  Pinacoteca.    (1892.) 
Berlin;  Konigliche  Museen.     (G.  F.  Waagen,  i860.) 
Vienna;  Gemalde  der  Belvedere-Galerie.    (1882-6.) 
Dresden;  Konigliche  Gemalde-Galerie.    (1912.) 
Mimich;  Paintings  in  the  Old  Pinakothek;  trans.  J.T.Clarke.  (1885.) 
The  Complete  work  of  Rembrandt,  by  Dr.  WiUiekn  Bode,  trans. 

Florence  Simmonds.     8  vols,  fo.,  illustrated.     (Paris,  1897- 

1906.) 
The  Metropolitan  Museum  of  Art,  New  York.    (1905.) 
The  same.    Loan  Exhibition  of  Paintings  by  old  Dutch  Masters; 

Hudson-Fulton  Exhibition.     (1909.) 

These  books  record  a  great  number  of  portraits 
of  ladies,  and  some  of  their  portraits  bear  inscrip- 


112  ^i)a'kjiptatt*!i  ibmnttsi 

tions;  those  inscriptions  which  most  neariy  ap- 
proach the  inscription  on  the  double  portrait  have 
been  selected  for  examination,  and  are  as  follows : 

INSTANCES  FROM  TEXT-BOOKS 

"Titian,"  by  Crowe  and  Cavalcaselle 

In  the  second  volume  of  Crowe  and  Cavalcaselle's 
Titian,  at  page  68,  a  portrait  by  Titian  of  a  ten- 
year-old  girl  is  described,  with  its  inscription  of 
date  and  age.  "  On  a  tablet  high  up  on  the  wall  to 
the  left  "is  inscribed:  "Annor.  X,  MDXLII,"  and, 
"on  the  edge  of  a  console  to  the  right"  appears 
"Titianus  F."  In  respect  to  this  inscription,  the 
writer  has  seen  a  reproduction  of  the  picture,  and 
thinks  that  Titian  made  use  of  the  inscription  as 
an  artistic  accessory  in  carrying  out  his  concep- 
tion of  the  portrait ;  genuine  inscriptions  are  often 
combined  with,  or  made  to  enter  into  the  picture, 
to  a  greater  or  lesser  extent.  There  is  apparently 
an  error  by  the  distinguished  authors  in  their 
statement  of  the  inscription.  The  picture  is 
called  a  portrait  of  a  daughter  of  Roberto  Strozzi. 
Such  a  portrait  of  a  daughter  of  Roberto  Strozzi, 
exactly  similar  to  the  description  given  above, 
and  in  all  points  to  what  else  is  said  eloquently 
of  the  picture  by  Messrs.  Crowe  and  Cavalcaselle 
is  reproduced  as  a  full-page  illustration  in  Les 
Musees  d' Europe,  Berlin,  Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum 
(Paris,  1910),  by  Gustave  Geffroy,  to  face  page 
140,  in  which  the  age  of  the  subject  appears  on  the 
tablet  as  two,  not  ten,  "Annor.  II,"  not  Annor.  X, 


and  the  lesser  age  is  established  by  the  appearance 
of  the  child  herself.  When  described  by  Messrs. 
Crowe  and  Cavalcaselle,  the  picture  was  in  the 
Palazzo  Strozzi  at  Florence,  but  it  has  since  ap- 
peared in  the  catalogue  of  the  ' '  Konigliche  Museen 
zu  Berlin  am  Lustgarten  "  (Berlin,  W.  Spemann, 
1902),  and  it  is  there  said  of  it  (p.  83),  "das  des 
Tochterchens  des  Roberto  Strozzi,"  and  at  page  93, 
"Bildniss  einer  Tochter  des  Roberto  Strozzi  aus 
Florenz  (1542)."  This  date  is  that  inscribed  on 
the  tablet  in  the  picture,  and  for  this  reason,  and 
the  coincidence  in  description,  it  is  the  same  pic- 
ture as  that  mentioned  by  Messrs.  Crowe  and 
Cavalcaselle,  and  their  statement  of  the  age  of  the 
child  is  not  correct. 
At  the  end  of  Messrs.  Crowe  and  Cavalcaselle's  vol- 
umes is  a  list,  covering  38  pages,  of  uncertified 
or  spurious  pictures  ascribed  to  Titian,  among 
which  occurs,  at  page  447,  an  unauthentic  por- 
trait of  a  little  girl,  inscribed:  "  Aetatis  Suae  4  nel 
Maio.  Per  Titiano  e  fatto  a  Cadoro,  1518." 
This  portrait  and  the  preceding  genuine  portrait 
by  Titian  should  be  classed  with  the  miniatures  of 
the  little  girls  of  4,  5  and  6  years  old,  mentioned 
heretofore,  in  which  the  strict  convention  is  laid 
aside. 

''History  of  Painting  in  North  Italy'' 

Portrait  of  a  nun  at  the  Accademia  in  Venice.  A  foot- 
note describes  the  painting  as:  "Bust  on  a  light 
ground  of  a  nun  with  her  left  hand  on  her  bosom, 
inscribed  on  the  ground  and  above  two  escutch- 
eons, F.  A.  XLVIII     A.  A.  XV:"     If  we  may 

8 


114  ^h^h^ptavt'fi  ^onnet£i 

attempt  to  interpret  this  inscription,  it  seems  to 
mean  that  the  portrait  is  of  a  lady  in  her  sixteenth 
year  (unless,  perhaps,  the  numerals  denoting  her 
age  are  also  contracted),  and  painted  in  1548,  but 
as  it  was  connected  with  her  taking  the  vows,  it 
is  hardly  relevant  here.  (Vol.  iii,  p.  188.) 
Portrait  of  a  lady  in  a  red  dress  and  with  a  book  in 
her  hand,  standing  with  her  elbow  on  a  pier, 
and  painted  by  Bernardino  Licinio.  Inscription: 
"1540.  Die  25  Feb."  The  picture  is  merely 
dated,  and  this,  as  it  gives  no  age  for  the  lady,  is 
not  an  inscription  in  the  sense  in  which  we  use  the 
term.     (Vol.  iii,  p.  189.) 

"Italian  Painters,"  by  G.  Morelli 

Portrait  of  the  artist  herself  by  a  feminine  artist, 
Sofonisba  Anguissola.  The  portrait  is  said  to  be 
in  the  Collection  of  Portraits  at  the  Uffizi  in 
Florence,  and  is  inscribed:  "Sophonisba  Anguis- 
sola, Cremis,  Aet.  Suae  Ann.  XX,"  but  it  has  no 
date.  A  picture  of  the  Holy  Family  by  this  lady, 
now  in  the  gallery  at  Bergamo,  is  inscribed: 
"Sophonisba  Anagussola,  {sic),  Adolescens,  P. 
1559,"  but  is  not  a  portrait,  and  does  not  give  a 
definite  age  for  the  painter.     (Vol.  i,  p.  198.) 

The  inscription  on  a  portrait  belonging  to  Lady  East- 
lake,  by  Cordegliaghi,  is  said  to  be:  "X  1504, 
Andreas  Cordelle  Agy,  discipulus  johannis  bel- 
lini  pin.xit  24."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  237.)  The  "24"  is 
said  to  be  not  a  statement  of  age  but  the  "mono- 
gram" of  the  painter  {History  of  Painting  in  North 
Italy,  vol.  i,  p.  280,  note) ;  the  picture  is  described 
by  Dr.  Waagen  in  his  notices  of  English  private 


^Jjafesfpeare^s!  B>ormtti  115 

galleries  (vol.  ii,  p.  265),  as  not  a  portrait  but  a 
"  Marriage  of  St.  Catherine." 

"Holbein"  by  R.  N.  Wornum 

In  the  large  family  picture  of  the  family  of  Sir  Thomas 
More,  a  picture  not  now  in  existence  and  perhaps 
never  wholly  completed,  but  preserved  through  a 
sketch  and  in  several  dissimilar  copies,  the  ages 
and  the  names  of  the  persons  introduced  seem  to 
have  been  inscribed  throughout  by  Holbein;  the 
ladies  in  the  picture  were,  however,  either  married 
or  betrothed.  Compare  with  this  the  instances 
of  pictures  of  assembled  families  found  in  Anec- 
dotes of  Painting,  by  Horace  Walpole  (infra),  and 
in  the  Dresden  and  Berlin  catalogues.  No  cer- 
tainly genuine  date  for  Holbein's  original  picture 
appears  to  exist,  the  date,  1530,  on  his  sketch 
being  a  later  addition.     (Pages  229,  235,  243.) 

The  Berlin  Museum  contains  a  small  picture  of  a 
Queen  Anne,  called  Anne  Boleyn,  and  perhaps  by 
Holbein  (page  269).  Inscription:  "Anna  Regina, 
1525,  Anno  Aetatis  22."  The  portrait  is  con- 
sidered to  be  a  likeness  of  the  royal  lady,  but  as 
Anne  Boleyn  was  not  married  to  Henry  VIII 
until  1532,  the  inscription  is  evidently  a  subse- 
quent addition  to  the  portrait,  resembling  in  this 
respect,  as  we  think,  the  inscription  on  the  double 
portrait.  Moreover,  its  statement  of  the  Queen's 
age  seems  more  likely  than  that  of  Camden,  the 
annalist,  which  differs  from  it.  Mr.  Wornum 
doubts  the  picture  being  a  work  by  Holbein;  it  is 
attributed  to  Holbein,  however,  in  the  Museum's 
catalogue. 


ii6  ^})afe)E;peare*£(  ^onnetsl 

''Anecdotes  of  Painting,''  by  Horace  Walpole 

"In  the  Palace  at  Kensington  are  two  daughters  of 
Philip  II  of  Spain,  i.  Isabella  Clara,  f^l.  Phil.  II. 
Regis  Hisp.  aet.  ii,  1571.  2.  Catherine,  aet. 
10."  The  painter  was  Sir  Anthony  More;  the 
young  ladies,  even  later  on,  as  royal  personages, 
were  doubtless  careless  of  the  inscription.     (Vol. 

i.  P-  I43-) 

A  picture  of  an  assembled  family,  painted  by  Lucas  de 
Heere.  "An  elderly  gentleman  is  at  table  with 
his  wife  and  another  lady,  probably,  from  the 
resemblance,  her  sister.  Before  them  are  seven 
young  children,  their  ages  marked,  which  show 
that  three  of  them  were  born  at  a  birth . "  No  date 
for  this  picture  is  mentioned;  it  is  said  to  repre- 
sent the  family  of  Sir  George  Brooke,  Lord  Cob- 
ham,  and  should  be  classed  with  the  portrait  of 
the  family  of  Sir  Thomas  More,  just  noted,  and 
with  the  Hibbard,  My  tens,  and  one  unnamed 
family-assemblage  pictures,  referred  to  further  on. 
(Vol.  i,  p.  156.) 

A  portrait  of  Anne  of  Denmark,  Queen  of  James  I, 
painted  by  Paul  Van  Somer.  Inscription:  "Anna 
Reg.  &c.,  Aet.  43."  Whether  the  portrait  has  a 
date  is  not  stated,  but,  representing  a  royal  and 
also  married  lady,  it  does  not  come  within  the 
convention.     (Vol.  i,  p.  210.) 

A  portrait  of  five  of  the  children  of  Charles  I,  by  Sir 
Anthony  Vandyck.  Inscription:  "Regis  Magnae 
Brittaniae  proles.  Princ.  Carolus,  nat.  29  May, 
1630;  Jac.  D.  Ebor.  nat.  14  Oct.  1633;  Princpssa 
Maria,  nat.  4  Nov.  1631;  Princip.  Eliza,  nat. 
28  Dec.  1635;  Princip.  Anna,  nat.  17  May,  1637; 


^fjafegpeare's  ^onnetfli  117 

Ant.  Vandyck  Eq.,  fecit,  1637."  The  inscription 
of  these  dates,  which  were  of  national  interest 
and  generally  known,  would  be  indifferent  to  the 
princesses.     (Vol.  i,  p.  331.) 

"Mr.  Baird  of  Auchmedden  in  Aberdeenshire,  has  in 
one  piece  three  young  ladies,  cousins,  of  the  houses 
of  Argyle,  Errol  and  Kinnoul:  Their  ages,  six, 
seven  and  eight,  as  marked  on  the  side  of  the 
picture."  It  seems  that  this  picture  has  no  date; 
it  was  painted  by  George  Jamesone  (1586-1644), 
an  early  Scottish  painter.      (Vol.  i,  p.  349.) 

An  assembled  family  portrait  of  "  Dr.  Hibbard,  physi- 
cian, his  wife,  and  five  children.  .  .  .  Two 
children  on  the  right  hand  were  certainly  added 
afterwards,  and  are  much  inferior  to  the  rest. 
The  dates  were  probably  inserted  at  the  same 
time."  This  portrait  is  by  the  well-known  Wil- 
liam Dobson.  The  description  of  it  is  quite  in- 
definite, but  if  the  picture  is  dated,  and  the  ages  of 
the  several  children  added,  it  is  an  instance  of 
the  inclination  in  portraits  of  assembled  families, 
to  state  the  age  of  every  member,  girls  as  well  as 
boys,  without  regard  to  the  later  inconvenience. 
(Vol.  ii,  p.  353.) 

"At  Wadham  College,  Oxford,  is  an  excellent  portrait 
of  an  old  female  servant  of  the  College,  inscribed : 
'Mary  George,  Aetatis  120.  Gul.  Sonmans  pinxit 
et  dedit.'"  (C/.  vol.  iii,  p.  973,  note.)  This  is 
not  dated.  If  Sonmans,  or  Sunman,  came  to 
England  in  the  reign  of  Charles  II,  as  is  here  said, 
this  is  one  of  the  latest  instances  of  this  habit  of 
inscribing  on  portraits  the  age  of  the  person  repre- 
sented, here  with  more  reason  than  usual.     An- 


ii8  ^fjafesipearc'j;  ^onnetjf 

other  instance  will  be  found,  of  the  year  1667,  at 
page  478.  There  is  one  of  1663  among  the  in- 
stances cited  from  the  Louvre  gallery.  (Vol.  ii, 
p.  520.) 
In  a  list  of  the  prints  by  Simon  de  Passe,  an  engraver 
of  the  time  of  James  I,  occurs  this  instance: 
"Matoaca,  alias  Rebecca,  filia  potentiss.  princ. 
Powkatavi  imp.  Virginiae,  aet.  21,  1616,"  the 
wife  of  John  Rolfe.  This  Indian  princess  is  more 
widely  known  as  Pocahontas;  as  she  was  married, 
the  inscription  of  her  age  was  according  to  the 
rule  as  practised.    (Vol.  iii,  p.  866.) 

^'Treasures  of  Art  in  Great  Britain,''  by  Dr.  Waagen 

Gallery  of  the  Marquis  of  Hertford.  Portraits  of 
Philip  Le  Roy,  Seigneur  of  Ravels,  and  of  his 
lady,  by  A.  Van  Dyck.  Inscriptions:  On  the  por- 
trait of  the  husband,  "A.  van  Dyck,  aetatis  suae 
34,  Ao.  1630":  On  the  portrait  of  his  wife, 
"Aetatis  suae  16.  1631."  The  convention  was 
not  extended  to  married  ladies.      (Vol.  ii,  p.  158.) 

Sir  Charles  Eastlake's  gallery.  Portrait  of  an  old  lady, 
aged  83,  by  Rembrandt.  This  picture  is  now  in 
the  National  Gallery  and  is  mentioned  under  that 
heading.     (Vol.  ii,  p.  264.) 

Hampton  Court.  A  portrait  said  to  be  of  the  father 
and  mother  of  the  younger  Holbein,  inscribed 
with  the  years  of  their  age,  52  and  35  respectively, 
and  the  date  of  the  painting,  1512.  This  portrait 
seems  to  be  accepted  by  Mr.  Wornum,  in  his 
study  of  Holbein,  as  having  been  painted  by  him 
at  an  early  age,  and  may  be  taken  to  represent 


^f)afe£(peare*s!  ^omtetsi  119 

married  people.  It  is  one  of  the  earliest  instances 
of  inscription-writing,  and  the  portrait  was 
painted  before  Holbein  came  to  England.  (Vol. 
ii,  p.  362.) 
Nostell  Priory.  The  assembled  family  of  Sir  Thomas 
More,  after  Holbein.  This  is  one  of  the  several 
variant  copies  or  completions  of  Holbein's  lost 
family  portrait.  The  ages  of  the  various  members 
of  the  family  are  inscribed  on  the  picture;  the 
ladies  of  the  family  are  all  either  married  or  be- 
trothed; two  or  three  servants  of  the  household 
also  appear,  but  their  ages  are  not  given  in  the 
copy,  though  one  of  them  appears  in  the  painter's 
original  sketch  of  the  picture,  where  the  age  of 
that  person  is  given. 


INSTANCES  FROM  CATALOGUES 

The  National  Gallery  {London) 

Paris  Bordone.  Vol.  i,  p.  56.  Portrait  of  a  lady.  In- 
scription: "Aetatis  suae  Ano.  XVIII.  Paris, 
B.  O."    The  portrait  is  not  dated. 

Rembrandt  van  Rijn.  Vol.  ii,  p.  124.  Portrait  of  a 
lady,  with  white  cap  and  ruff.  Inscription:  "Ae 
sue  83.  Rembrandt  ft.  1634."  The  lady's  age 
takes  her  out  of  the  conventional  rule. 

The  National  Portrait  Gallery 

School  of  Holbein.  Vol.  i,  p.  25.  Portrait  of  Queen 
Catherine  Howard.  Inscription:  "Aetatis  suae 
21,"    An  inscription,  but  illegible  in  the  reproduc- 


120  ^f)afe£fpeare*j!  ^ormttn 

tion,  appears  on  the  adjoining  portrait  of  Queen 
Anne  Boleyn, 
Johannes  Corvus.  Vol.  i,  p.  30.  Portrait  of  the  Prin- 
cess Mary  Tudor,  before  her  accession  to  the 
throne.  Inscription:  "Anno  Dni  1544.  Ladi 
Mari,  doughter  to  the  most  vertuous  prince  King 
Henri  the  Eight.  The  age  of  XXVIII  yeres." 
National  interest  in  the  three  ladies  last  men- 
tioned sufficiently  explains  the  inscriptions; 
portraits  of  royal  personages  were  perhaps  par- 
ticularly subject  to  posthumous  labels.  As  the 
catalogue  is  made  up  of  illustrations  of  the  por- 
traits, with  only  a  slight  description  of  them,  the 
inscriptions  must  be  gathered  from  the  plates,  but 
there  do  not  seem  to  be  any  even  remotely  relevant 
to  the  double  portrait,  other  than  those  here  cited, 
and  a  miniature  of  Queen  Elizabeth  elsewhere 
described. 

The  Burlington  Fine  Arts  Club.     Early  English 

Portraiture 

Unidentified  painter.  Page  81.  Portrait  of  an  un- 
known lady,  described  thus:  "Half  length,  three- 
quarters  to  right,  fair  hair  parted  in  the  middle 
and  turned  forward  over  the  ears;  black  French 
hood;  black  dress  lined  with  white  fur,  the  sleeves 
puffed  and  slashed;  both  hands,  folded  before, 
hold  a  small  book."  Inscription:  "  Ano  Dni  1551. 
Aetatis  34."  It  is  said  that  the  lady  may  have 
been  a  member  of  the  Grey  family.  The  painter's 
initials,  H.  E.,  may,  it  is  said,  possibly  represent 
the  painter,  Haunce  Eworth.  In  the  absence  of 
the  portrait,  which  appears  to  be  in  the  collection 


B>hsLk9iptsiu'si  ^otmttn  121 

of  the  Duke  of  Norfolk,  and  of  which  there  is  no 
reproduction  in  the  catalogue,  it  is  difficult  to 
learn  what  was  the  lady's  appearance,  but  her 
age,  and  the  use  of  the  inscription,  lead  to  an 
inference  that  the  portrait,  when  examined,  will 
rather  resemble  that  of  a  matron.  This  portrait 
and  a  few  others  which  are  doubtful  will  be  es- 
pecially referred  to  again  later  on. 
Unknown  painter.  Page  loi.  Portrait  of  Margaret 
Wyat,  Lady  Lee  (?)  wife  of  Sir  Anthony  Lee  (?). 
Inscription:  "Etatis  suae  34."  This  has  no  date; 
the  reproduced  portrait  is  distinctly  like  that  of 
a  matron. 

Musee  du  Louvre.     {Fr.  Villot) 

Philippe  de  Champaigne.  ficoles  Allemande,  Fla- 
mande  et  Hollandaise,  page  46.  "Portrait  d'une 
petite  fille."  Inscription:  "Age  5  Ans  3  mois." 
This  is  not  dated,  and,  at  the  child's  age,  would 
not  in  any  event  come  under  the  rule,  as  it  was 
practised. 

Gerard  Dou.  Page  62.  Portrait  of  an  invalid  lady, 
"La  femme  hydropique,"  and  her  daughter,  a 
serving  maid  and  a  doctor.  Inscription:  "1663. 
G.  Dov.  oud.  65  jaer."  The  lady,  as  both  aged 
and  married,  does  not  come  within  the  rule. 

Michiel-Jansz  Mierevelt.  Page  174.  Portrait  of  a 
lady.  Her  description  may  be  translated  thus: 
The  lady  appears  in  three-quarter  face  to  the 
left,  wears  a  white  cap  (bonnet),  adorned  with 
lace  (guipure),  and  a  wide  honeycomb  ruff 
(fraise  tuyautee),  and  has  a  golden  chain  about 
her  neck.     Her  dress  is  black,  the  bodice  orna- 


122  ^f)afes;peare*2i  bonnets; 

mented  with  small  studs  (boutons);  the  cuffs  or 
sleeve-facings  (hautes  manchettes)  are  long  and 
ornamented  with  lace,  and  she  holds  in  her  left 
hand  gloves  embroidered  with  strawberries,  birds 
and  butterflies.  Inscription:  "Aetatis  su.  34. 
Anno  1634."  There  is  nothing  known  of  this 
lady,  and  her  circumstances  in  respect  to  marriage 
are  unascertainable.  The  portrait  may  be  classed 
with  that  of  one  of  the  ladies  of  like  age,  the  lady, 
perhaps  of  the  Grey  family,  mentioned  in  the 
Burlington  catalogue  (supra),  and  will  be  re- 
viewed with  it  and  some  others  later  on. 

KonigUche  Museen,  Berlin 

Antony  Palamedes.  Page  254.  Portrait  of  a  young 
girl.  Inscription:  "Ao.  16.  A.  Palamed."  The 
portrait  has  no  date. 

Jacob  Gerritz  Cuyp.  Page  254.  Portrait  of  an  old 
lady.  Inscription:  "Aetatis  68.  Anno  1624. 
J.  G.  Cuyp  fecit."  The  lady's  age  makes  the  rule 
inapplicable  to  her. 

Michel  Janze  Mierevelt.  Page  256.  Portrait  of  an 
old  lady.  Inscription:  "Ao.  1650.  Aetatis  82." 
This  instance  is  similar  to  the  preceding. 

Theodoor  (Thomas?)  de  Keiser.  Page  256.  Portrait 
of  an  assembled  and  unidentified  family.  The 
picture  shows  a  man,  aged  48,  seated  at  a  table, 
his  wife,  aged  40,  also  seated,  two  sons,  of  22  and 
8  years  standing,  and  three  daughters  of  19,  14 
and  10  years  respectively,  also  standing.  The 
ages  of  the  various  persons  are  inscribed  near 
them ;  the  picture  is  not  dated.    It  may  be  classed 


^fjafesipeare'sf  ^ottnetjS  123 

with  the  other  pictures  of  assembled  famiHes, 
that  of  the  Mytens  family,  noticed  in  the  Dresden 
Gallery  (infra),  and  with  some  other  like  in- 
stances mentioned  hitherto.  When  such  a  por- 
trait was  also  dated,  the  natural  disinclination  of 
the  feminine  members  of  the  families  to  this  pro- 
cedure was  overruled,  evidently,  by  the  general 
interest  in  the  pictures  as  family  records. 

Belvedere-Galerie,  Vienna 

Andrea  del  Sarto.  Italian  Schools,  vol.  i,  p.  294. 
Portrait  of  an  old  lady  in  a  dark  dress,  seated  with 
a  book.  Inscription:  "An  Aet.  LXXII."  The 
portrait  is  not  dated. 

Antonis  Mor,  known  in  England  as  Sir  Anthony  More. 
Schools  of  the  Netherlands,  vol.  ii,  p.  294.  Por- 
trait of  an  unknown  lady.  Her  description  may 
be  translated  as  follows :  A  lady  of  rank,  her  left 
side  turned  toward  the  viewer,  stands  by  a  table 
on  which  she  rests  her  right  hand.  She  wears  a 
dark  velvet  dress,  with  a  long  golden  key-chain 
which  she  lifts  with  her  left  hand.  Her  hair, 
combed  back,  is  covered  with  a  lace  cap.  The 
open  collar  is  bordered  by  a  small  ruff.  On  the 
shoulders  the  short  sleeves  are  widely  puffed ;  the 
close  undersleeves,  of  a  light  material,  end  in 
ruffles  at  the  wrists.  Both  hands  are  ornamented 
with  rings.  Dark  background.  Inscription: 
"  1575.  Acta."  The  numerals  signifying  her  age 
are  missing,  but  the  portrait  itself,  of  which  we 
have  seen  a  reproduction,  is  of  a  typical  matron 
of  froni  forty  to  fifty  years  old, 


124  ^f^aksiptatt'si  ^onnet£( 

Hans  Burgkmair.  German  Schools,  vol.  iii,  p.  41. 
A  portrait  of  himself  and  his  wife  by  the  painter. 
Inscription:  "  Joann  Burgkmair  Maler  LVII  Alt. 
Anna  Allerlahn.  Gemael.  LII  Jar  Alt.  MDXX- 
VIIII.  Mai.  X.  Tag."  The  Burgkmair  and  Hol- 
bein families  were  cotemporaries  and  closely 
associated  in  Augsburg;  the  younger  Holbein's 
mother  was,  it  is  said,  of  the  Burgkmair  family 
{Holbein,  by  R.  N.  Wornum,  pp.  50,  57,  80);  and 
it  was  at  Augsburg,  probably,  that  he  commenced 
to  place  inscriptions  on  portraits,  this  fashion 
having  just  arisen. 

Unknown  German  painter.  Vol.  iii,  p.  74.  The  de- 
scription rendered  into  English,  seems  to  be:  A 
lady  of  rank,  thirty-one  years  old,  stands  in  three- 
quarter  face,  the  left  side  toward  the  observer, 
with  her  clasped  hands  resting  on  her  dress.  She 
wears  a  red  coat  or  gown  extending  to  the  ground, 
with  broad  sleeve-facings  of  green  velvet,  with 
which  the  gown  is  also  bordered.  On  her  breast 
appears  gold  brocade  with  a  white  inner  garment 
which  is  fastened  at  the  neck  and  is  adorned  with 
gold  lace  to  which  pearls  are  attached.  A  cap 
richly  embroidered  with  pearls  covers  her  hair, 
two  dissimilar  gold  chains  are  about  the  neck, 
and  at  the  waist  a  long  girdle-ornament  of  gold 
pieces  depends.  The  background  shows  a  grey 
stone  portal,  with  the  inscription:  "An.  A.  Nato 
XPO  MDXXV.  Aetatis  XXXI,"  and  above  it 
appears  a  quotation  from  the  Psalmist:  "Non 
derelinqua  me  une  deus  meus  ne  discesseris  a  me. 
Psal.  XXXVIII."  The  picture  seems  a  memorial 
of  some  calamity,  and  the  lady  doubtless  had  a 


^tjakgpeare'g  Bxmnttsi  125 

special  reason  for  the  inscription  (Ps.  38,  v.  21). 
This  excepts  it  from  the  usual  rule.    The  portrait 
is  life-size.     Whether  the  lady  was  married  is 
unknown. 
The  younger  Holbein.   Vol.  iii,  p.  135.    Portrait  of  an 
unknown    lady    ("Bildniss    einer    Frau").     The 
description  may  be  thus  rendered:    The  twenty- 
eight  year  old  lady,  with  round  face  and  retrousse 
nose,  in  three-quarter  face,  and  with  her  left  side 
turned  towards  the  observer,  gazes  directly  before 
her.    Over  a  white  linen  cap,  under  which  a  lock 
of  blond  hair  appears,  she  wears  a  kind  of  yellow- 
ish-white cloth  hood.    A  black  bodice  with  a  very 
narrow  fur  border  half  covers  the  breast,  above 
which,  to  high  on  the  throat,  extends  a  thin  white 
material.     On  the  shoulders  lies  a  small  white 
wrap.     On  the  green  background  is  inscribed: 
"Etatis  suae  28;  Anno  1534."     As  the  lady  is 
described  by  the  writer  of  the  description  as  Frau, 
not  Fraiilein,  she  appeared  to  him  to  perhaps 
resemble  a  matron,  doubtless   aiding  his  judg- 
ment by  her  age,  while  the  presence  of  the  inscrip- 
tion  incHnes    the    balance   of   evidence   in  the 
same    direction.     This    inscription,    with    some 
other  uncertain  inscriptions,  will  be  reviewed  to- 
gether as  a  class   later  on.     We  have  recently 
seen  a   reproduction  of  this  portrait,  which  is 
more    attractive    than    the    description    would 
seem  to  indicate,  and  are  inclined  to  think  that 
in  this  case  the  presence  of  the  inscription  and 
the  lady's  age  should,  there  being  no  other  evi- 
dence but  the  interesting  picture  itself,  control 
the  decision. 


126  ^ijafes!pcare*s{  B>ovmttsi 

Konigliche  Gemdlde-Galerie,  Dresden 

Unknown  Dutch  artist.  Page  91.  Portrait  of  an  un- 
known lady  in  a  white  cap  or  hood.  Inscription: 
"Aetatis  41;  Ao.  1548."  At  this  lady's  age,  her 
matrimonial  status  being  wholly  unknown,  the 
inscription  cannot  be  considered  as  precedent  for 
the  inscription  on  the  double  portrait. 

Van  Dyck.  Page  106.  Portrait  of  an  old  lady.  In- 
scription: "Aetatis  suae  60;  Anno  161 8."  This 
may  be  a  companion  picture  to  one  next  to 
it  in  the  catalogue,  of  an  old  man,  and  with 
the  same  inscription:  "Aetatis  Suae  60;  Anno 
1618."  The  inscription  is  irrelevant  as  evidence 
here. 

Portrait,  page  137,  by? Mytens,  of  David  Mytens, 

his  wife  and  their  five  children,  dated  1624,  and 
inscribed  with  the  age  of  each  person.  The  sex 
and  ages  of  the  children  are  not  mentioned  in  the 
catalogue.  If  there  are  girls  past  infancy,  the 
inscription  was  not  suitable  in  respect  to  them. 
For  some  other  instances  of  this  tendency  to  state 
all  the  ages  in  the  pictures  of  assembled  families, 
see  the  portraits  of  the  family  of  Sir  Thomas  More, 
and  some  further  instances,  in  the  preceding  lists. 

Alte  Pinakothek,  Munich 

Hans  Miilich.  Page  67.  Portrait  of  an  unknown  lady, 
dated  1542,  and  inscribed:  "1540  zalt  do  wart 
ich  37  jar  alt."  The  picture  is  a  companion  piece 
to  a  portrait  of  a  man  by  the  same  artist,  and 
dated  1540,  inscribed:  "Etatis  sue  XXXVIII." 
From  a  comparison  of  the  ages  of  the  persons  re- 


^i}Sik9iptatt*i  ^onnetsi  127 

presented  in  the  two  portraits,  some  relation,  very 
possibly  of  marriage,  seems  to  be  probable. 

Thomas  de  Keyser.  Page  80.  Triple  portrait.  A 
young  business  man  renders  his  accounts  to  his 
master.  A  lady  holding  an  eyeglass  sits  in  an 
armchair.  Signed,  "T.  Keyser,  1650."  In- 
scribed, near  the  lady,  "Aetat.  6  z,"  and,  near 
one  of  the  men,  "Aetat.  z  6."  The  lady's  age  is 
not  stated,  or  perhaps  is  in  a  cipher.  The  mutual 
meaning  of  the  inscriptions  is  obscure. 

Gerard  Douffet.  Page  175.  Companion  portraits  of 
a  merchant  and  his  wife,  dated  161 7,  and  the  ages 
inscribed,  that  of  the  merchant,  51,  and  of  his 
wife,  57.    This  is  quite  irrelevant. 

"The  Complete  Work  of  Rembrandt'^ 

Vol.  ii,  No.  89.  Portrait  of  Cornelia  Pronck.  In- 
scription: "Rembrandt  f.  1633.  Aet.  33."  A 
companion  picture  of  the  husband  of  this  lady 
adjoins  it,  and  the  instance  is  therefore  irrelevant. 

Vol.  ii,  No.  106.  Portrait  of  a  woman  of  eighty-three. 
Vide  supra,  catalogue  of  the  National  Gallery, 
London. 

Vol.  ii,  No.  115.  Portrait  of  a  young  woman  of  eigh- 
teen. Inscription:  "Ae.  sue.  18.  Rembrandt 
f.  1634."  We  have  to  say  of  this  portrait  that  it 
is  not  our  ideal  of  a  young  lady  of  eighteen.  The 
history  of  the  portrait  is  not  now  ascertainable, 
and  there  is  nothing  to  show  that  the  young 
woman  was  unmarried.  The  countenance  is  dis- 
tinctly unattractive;  the  general  preface  to  the 
volume,  which  is  usually  commendatory,  com- 


128  B>f)ak^pesixt*si  ^onneW 

ments  upon  it  adversely.  As  the  inscription  would 
be  exceptional  for  an  unmarried  girl,  as  the  young 
woman  does  not  appear  in  the  portrait  as  the  dis- 
tinctive type  of  an  unmarried  lady,  as  she  may 
have  been  married,  and  as  this  would  be  the  soli- 
tary instance  in  Rembrandt's  work  of  such  an 
inscription  on  the  portrait  of  a  young  and  un- 
married woman,  it  cannot  be  affirmed  that  this  is 
an  exception  to  the  rule  of  courtesy.  This  por- 
trait will  be  referred  to  later  on  with  a  few  other 
uncertain  instances. 

Vol.  iii,  No.  224.  An  old  lady  in  an  armchair.  In- 
scription: "Rembrandt  fc.  1635,  Aet.  sue  70,  24." 
The  meaning  of  "24"  is  not  at  all  clear.  The 
"monogram"  of  Cordegliaghi,  "24,"  in  an  in- 
stance from  Morelli's  Italian  Painters,  seems  to 
resemble  it.  The  lady  is,  from  her  age,  beyond 
the  intention  of  the  convention. 

Vol.  iv.  No.  278.  An  old  lady  with  her  hands  clasped. 
Inscription:  "Rembrandt  f.  1640.  Aet.  suae  87." 
This  portrait  cannot  be  considered  within  the 
convention. 

Vol.  vi.  No.  454.  Portrait  of  a  lady  seated  in  a  chair 
and  looking  at  a  parrot.  Inscription:  "Catrina 
Hoogsaet,  oud  50  jaer,  Rembrandt,  1657."  In 
the  Introduction,  this  lady  is  said,  we  know  not  on 
what  authority,  to  be  an  old  spinster.  If  she 
should  be  considered  unmarried,  her  age  still 
places  her  beyond  the  meaning  of  the  convention. 

Vol.  viii.  No.  560.  A  woman  holding  a  hymn-book. 
Inscription:  "Rt  Van  Ryn,  1632.  Aet.  39."  As 
the  lady's  matrimonial  situation  is  unknown,  her 
age  and  the  presence  of  the  inscription  lead  us  to 


S>f)afe£(peare'£f  i^ormtii  129 

infer  that  she  was  married.  This  portrait  is  one 
of  the  few  doubtful  instances  to  be  summed  up 
later  on. 

Precise  statistics  of  Rembrandt's  practice  in 
respect  to  inscriptions  may  be  taken  from  his 
work,  and  are  as  follows:  His  pictures  number 
595,  of  which  133  are  portraits  of  ladies.  Of 
these  last,  the  complete  inscription  of  both  date  of 
painting  and  age  of  the  subject  is  placed  on  7,  the 
age  alone  of  the  lady  is  given  on  none,  the  date  of 
painting  alone  is  given  on  74,  and  on  52  there  is 
no  inscription;  we  pay  no  attention  to  the  pres- 
ence or  absence  of  the  signature  of  the  artist,  as 
it  has  no  bearing  upon  the  matter  before  us.  An 
Appendix  to  the  Edition,  giving  21  lost  and  addi- 
tional pictures  known  only  through  engravings, 
does  not  give  the  inscriptions  on  the  originals, 
and  therefore  is  wholly  omitted  from  our  analysis. 
Among  the  133  portraits  of  ladies,  if  we  try  to 
select  from  them  the  portraits  of  ladies  who  in 
our  best  judgment  are  more  probably  young  and 
marriageable — though  we  have  generally  no 
information  as  to  whether  they  were  or  were  not 
married,  and  no  definable  rule  at  all  to  go  by  in 
selecting  them — we  may  perhaps  select  41,  of 
which  there  are  none  whose  inscriptions  give  the 
lady's  age  only,  19  whose  inscriptions  give  the 
date  of  the  portrait  only,  and  21  which  bear  no 
inscription.  There  is  but  one  of  the  41 ,  that  of  the 
lady  aged  18  and  mentioned  in  the  above  list, 
which  has  the  inscription  of  age,  and  that  por- 
trait has  the  full  inscription  of  both  date  and  age, 
and  thus  proves  to  be  exceptional  in  its  inscription 
9 


130  fefjafeJ^pcare'g  ^onnetsl 

as  it  seems  to  be  throughout.  The  remainder  of 
the  133  portraits  of  ladies  are  either  portraits  of 
older  ladies  or  of  ladies  known  to  be  married,  or 
otherwise  unavailable.  The  tendency  in  Rem- 
brandt's portraits  of  ladies  is  not,  therefore,  to- 
ward giving  their  ages.  The  only  instances  out  of 
133  portraits  of  ladies  in  which  he  did  give  them 
are  the  seven  described  ^t  length  in  the  above  list, 
and  he  probably  had  special  reasons  in  each  of 
these  cases  for  so  doing. 

Metropolitan  Museum,  N.  F.,  Loan  Exhibition 

Frans  Hals.  Portrait  of  Vrouw  Bodolphe.  Inscrip- 
tion: "Aetat.  suae  73.  Ano  1643.  F.  H."  This 
lady  was  probably  the  wife  of  Heer  Bodolphe, 
whose  portrait,  also  by  Frans  Hals,  adjoins  this 
and  has  the  same  inscription,  they  being  of  the 
same  age.     (Page  134.) 

Frans  Hals.  Portrait  of  Dorothea  Berck.  Inscrip- 
tion: "Aetat.  suae  51.  Ano  1644.  F.  H."  The 
lady  is  said  to  have  been  the  wife  of  the  much 
younger  man  whose  portrait  adjoins  hers.  (Page 
140.) 

Neither  of  these  portraits  is  relevant  to  the 
double  portrait. 

As  many  of  the  books  and  catalogues  above 
listed  contained  no  inscriptions  which  were  prece- 
dents for,  or  conveyed  any  necessary  information 
relative  to  that  on  the  double  portrait,  they  were 
not  again  referred  to,  though  inscriptions  occur  in 


all  of  them.     In  the  instances  cited,  the  evidence 
which  does  not  affirmatively  sustain  the  position 
taken  in  this  Note,  as  to  the  inscriptions  upon  the 
portraits  of  young  and  unmarried  ladies,  can  be 
called  generally  accidental  rather  than  intentional, 
and  is  not  more  than  should  be  expected  in  a  sub- 
ject of  this  kind.    The  instances  gathered  from  the 
books  in  the  preceding  lists  are  much  diversified, 
and  the  reader  might  expect  that  there  would  in- 
evitably be  something  among  them  which  would 
militate  against  the  rule,  but  he  will  find  on  ex- 
amination that  there  is  no  portrait  which  certainly 
opposes  it,  and  that,  while  there  are  a  few  uncer- 
tain instances,  they  are  not  numerous  enough  to 
have  importance   as   opposing  evidence.      These 
doubtful    inscriptions    have    been    already    com- 
mented upon  in  passing   through   the  lists,  but 
we  will  assemble  them  for  examination  together 
They  are  upon  portraits  of  ladies  of  marriageable 
age,  but  of  whose  circumstances,  whether  matrons 
and  permitting  the  inscription,  or  young  and  un- 
married ladies  and  not  permitting  it,  nothing  fur- 
ther is  known,  namely:     The  portrait  of  a  lady, 
in  the  Burlington  catalogue,  perhaps  of  the  Grey 
family,  aged  thirty-four,  a  lady,  in  the  Louvre 
gallery,  aged  thirty-four,  the  lady  in  the  Belvedere 
gallery,  Vienna,  aged  twenty-eight,  Rembrandt's 


132  ^fjafejspeare'g  ^onnetg 

ambiguous  portrait  of  a  young  woman  aged  eigh- 
teen, and  perhaps  his  portrait  of  a  lady  holding 
a  hymn-book,  aged  thirty-nine;  the  last  two  in- 
stances appear  in  the  preceding  list  from  Dr.  Bode's 
complete  edition  of  Rembrandt.  These  cases  are 
essentially  uncertain,  but,  as  they  are  so  remark- 
ably few  in  number,  it  is  much  more  probable  that 
they  conformed  to  the  general  tendency,  observ- 
able in  the  practice  of  artists,  to  exclude  such 
inscriptions  from  the  portraits  of  young  and  un- 
married ladies,  than  that  they  were  exceptions  to 
it.  The  objection,  that  is,  that  these  cases  might 
be  possibly  exceptions  to  the  practice,  is  less 
probable  than  it  is  to  suppose  the  practice  to  have 
been  generally  recognized  in  these  cases  also,  and 
the  ladies  to  have  been  matrons,  there  being  no 
other  evidence  as  to  the  fact.  In  the  case  of  the 
lady  aged  eighteen,  the  evidence  of  the  picture  it- 
self, which  is  reproduced  by  Dr.  Bode,  tends,  when 
supported  by  the  uncertainty  as  to  the  lady's 
marriage,  and  by  the  singularity  of  the  inscription 
in  Rembrandt's  work,  to  show  that  this  was  not  a 
genuine  exception  to  the  rule.  A  distinguishable 
group  of  portraits,  though  hardly  needing  recapitu- 
lation, is  made  by  those  of  the  More,  Brooke, 
Hibbard,  one  unnamed,  and  Mytens  families  of 
children,  with  their  parents,  where  the  customary 


^fjalisfpeare's!  ^onneW  133 

courtesy  was  evidently  disregarded  in  the  desire 
to  make  a  complete  register  of  the  assembled  fam- 
ily. A  third  class  of  exceptional  portraits,  those 
of  ladies  who  were  also  royal  personages,  has  been 
repeatedly  explained.  The  easel  portraits  assem- 
bled in  the  lists,  and  they  are  all  that  were  observed 
as  needing  mention  in  the  books  and  catalogues 
cited,  will  be  found  to  give,  in  no  instance,  a  clear 
precedent  for  the  inscription  on  the  double  portrait. 
We  have,  to  speak  figuratively,  cast  a  net  over 
these  books  and  catalogues,  both  of  miniatures  and 
of  easel  portraits,  and  the  returns,  in  the  shape  of 
inscriptions  of  the  sort  to  which  that  on  the  double 
portrait  belongs,  have  been  very  scanty.  Consider- 
ing that  painters  were,  then,  as  they  are  now,  at 
liberty  to  write  their  inscriptions  as  their  discre- 
tion, or  the  interest  of  their  employers,  guided 
them,  the  paucity  of  the  returns  is  certainly  strik- 
ing. It  may  be  said  that  among  all  the  instances 
collected  in  this  essay,  the  only  certain  and  com- 
plete precedent  for,  or  rather  example  of,  the  in- 
scription on  the  double  portrait,  is  on  a  miniature, 
that  of  Mistress  Holland,  which,  as  it  happened, 
was  replaced  by  the  lady  in  the  next  year.  Sur- 
prising as  it  may  be  to  believers  in  the  enormous 
progress  of  our  time  over  what  has  been  before, 
the  fact  remains  that  the  wishes  of  young  women, 


134  ^fjafegpeare's!  Bxmmti 

in  the  Sixteenth  and  Seventeenth  centuries,  were 
regarded  by  painters  in  this  matter,  as  is  indicated 
by  the  all  but  non-appearance  in  the  record  ex- 
amined of  any  portrait  or  miniature  definitely 
infringing  the  rule.  It  was  an  unwritten  law,  the 
law  of  young  women's  wishes.  The  ages  of  all 
classes  of  people  were  described  on  their  portraits 
by  painters  with  the  utmost  freedom,  but  as  to 
young  girls  they  recognized  a  difference.  In  the 
full  tide  of  inscription-writing  on  portraits,  the 
convention  of  reserve  as  to  the  ages  of  young  ladies 
was  generally  respected,  the  evidence  of  the  family 
portraits  examined  placing  the  point  beyond  a 
reasonable  doubt,  unless  further  and  opposing 
evidence  can  be  found,  which,  in  any  considerable 
or  noticeable  amount,  will  not,  as  we  think,  prob- 
ably be  discovered. 

The  seven  uncertain  miniatures,  which  we  left 
with  a  decision  upon  them  in  suspense,  until  an 
examination  of  the  record  of  the  easel  portraits 
should  show  more  fully  what  was  the  tendency  of 
artists  in  this  direction,  if  they  are  tested  by  the 
general  tendency  of  painters,  which  is  certainly 
sufficiently  apparent  in  the  larger  portraits,  must 
be  allowed  to  have  been  probably  the  miniatures 
of  married  ladies,  or  else  to  have  been  unusual  ex- 
ceptions to  a  considerate  and  proper  practice. 


^l)afe£;peare*£(  ^onnctjf  135 

It  can  scarcely  be  doubted  that  the  painter  of 
the  double  portrait,  if  he  added  the  inscription, 
went  beyond  the  custom  of  artists,  and  took  upon 
himself  to  place  upon  the  portrait  an  inscription 
which  was  altogether  unusual.    As  the  reader  has 
noticed,  the  collections  consulted  are  only  repre- 
sentative of  the  galleries,  large  and  small,  and  the 
evidence  is  not  perfect,  as  no  examination  could 
be  exhaustive,  and  none  such  has  been  attempted. 
Other  collections  may  contain  instances  of  diffi- 
culty, but  unless  they  should  prove  unexpectedly 
numerous  and  important,  they  could  not  justify  a 
denial  of  the  existence  and  recognition  then,  in  the 
Sixteenth  and  Seventeenth  centuries,  of  the  natural 
reserve  which  has  been  referred  to.     The  reader 
will  find  it  possible  with  merely  the  evidence  pro- 
duced, we  think,  to  decide  as  to  this  aspect  of  the 
Arbury  portraits,  the  disregard  in  the  double  por- 
trait of  the  usual  courtesy  to  young  ladies,  and 
as  to  the  inference,  therefore,  that  the  inscription 
was  not  cotemporary  with  but  subsequent  to  the 
portrait.     It  should  be  said  in  passing  that  this 
argument  is  not  without  precedents;  one  will  be 
found  in  Morelli's  Italian   Painters,  above  cited 
(vol.  ii,  p.  40),  where  there  is  a  discussion  whether 
an  inscription  on  a  painting  of  the  Madonna  by 
Palma  Vecchio  is  cotemporaneous  with  the  paint- 


136  ^tiafesipeare'sf  ^onneW 

ing  or  a  later  addition,  and  this  is  held  to  affect 
Palma's  position  in  history;  the  date  of  an  in- 
scription has  not  unfrequently  been  questioned. 

As  we  have  not  seen  the  other  older  portraits  at 
Arbury,  even  in  photogravure,  and  know  of  their 
Latin  labels  only  from  Mr,  Bridgeman's  Appendix 
to  Lady  Newdegate's  book,  we  are  quite  in  the 
dark  as  to  the  precise  lettering  of  those  inscrip- 
tions, though  it  is  understood  that  on  several  of 
those  pictures  the  ages  of  the  subjects  of  the  por- 
traits, and  usually  with  them  the  dates  of  painting, 
are  represented,  nor  do  we  know  how  many  por- 
traits are  so  marked,  nor  what  are  their  dates  and 
general  appearance,  nor  whether  they  are  of  men 
or  of  women,  nor  whether  the  artists  were  of  for- 
eign or  of  native  origin,  but  it  is  not  expected  that 
evidence  from  them  will  materially  affect  the  evi- 
dence given  by  the  double  portrait,  nor  that  as  to 
its  inscription.  It  is  possible  that  in  one  or  more  of 
the  older  portraits,  and  not  in  a  miniature,  may  be 
found  the  model  from  which  the  inscription  on  the 
double  portrait  was  taken,  and  identification  of  it 
would  perhaps  be  practicable  and  certainly  inter- 
esting; an  identification  of  it  might  be  made, 
possibly,  through  the  spelling. 

The  inscription  which  would  be  unconventional 
when  the  picture  was  painted  would  be  natural 


^fjalifiipeare's!  ^onnet£f  137 

and  proper  a  century  later.  If  Mary  Fytton  was 
the  "Dark  Lady,"  and  the  evidence  that  she  was 
comes  to  the  verge  of  proof,  it  is  certainly  obvious 
that  the  Latin  inscription  on  the  double  portrait 
can  not  have  been  placed  on  it  when  the  portrait 
was  painted,  as  the  portrait,  necessarily  in  that 
case,  would  not  contain  her  likeness.  An  older 
portrait  was  taken,  probably,  as  a  model  in  select- 
ing the  critical  inscription  at  Arbury,  but  the  evi- 
dence which  can  be  found  in  the  picture  itself  and 
in  the  inscription,  the  inconsistent  minor  details  of 
the  portrait,  and  the  inconsistency  with  the  in- 
scription both  of  the  evident  age  of  the  lady  on  the 
right  in  the  portrait,  and  of  the  actual  age  of  her 
supposed  original,  Mary  Fytton,  and  the  improba- 
bility that  the  artist  would  make  publicly  calcul- 
able the  ages  of  the  two  young  girls,  leads  to  the 
belief  that  this  happened,  not  when  the  portrait 
was  painted,  but  long  after  the  two  young  ladies 
were  represented  together  in  the  double  picture. 

Leaving  the  inscription,  we  return  to  the  por- 
trait itself.  The  second  portrait  given  to  us  in  the 
Fytton  Letters  is  like  a  replica  in  Court  dress  of  the 
lady  on  the  right  in  the  double  portrait,  and  has 
the  same  original.  Some  difference  can  certainly 
be  found  in  the  ages  of  the  two  faces,  but  it  is  not 


138  ^fjafegpcarc's;  ^onntti 

enough  to  be  at  all  material.  The  character  of  the 
face  of  the  lady  upon  the  right  in  the  double  por- 
trait is  anything  but  that  which  we  associate  with 
the  rash  and  passionate  type  to  which  Mary  Fyt- 
ton  belonged,  and  her  distinct  air  of  high  reserve 
is  accentuated  in  the  second,  or  Court,  picture. 
This  difficulty  has  been  felt  by  Lady  Newdegate, 
who  expresses  very  clearly  and  frankly  a  doubt  of 
her  position,  by  saying  as  to  this  second  picture: 

The  expression  has  changed,  under  the  schooling  of 
a  Court  life,  to  one  of  almost  studied  demureness,  lead- 
ing one  to  suspect  a  vein  of  subtlety  beneath ;  or  is  it 
because  we  know  her  history  that  we  discern  so  much  ? 

Gossip  from  a  Muniment  Room,  2d  ed.,  p.  27. 

The  doubt  as  to  this  lady's  expression  and  char- 
acter which  has  been  felt  by  Lady  Newdegate  will 
be  felt  by  nearly  all  other  persons  who  study  the 
pictures.  The  inclination  to  regard  her  picture  as 
important  in  Shakspearean  evidences  has  influ- 
enced Lady  Newdegate,  and,  besides,  she  could 
support  her  identification  of  the  portrait  by  a 
study,  perhaps  not  sufficiently  thorough,  of  the 
inscription.  It  is  worth  mention  as  to  this  second 
portrait  that  Mr.  Bridgeman  admits  (p.  173),  "the 
striking  resemblance,  especially  about  the  mouth 
and  chin,  to  the  younger  girl  in  the  double  por- 


^Jjafejfpcare'jf  ^onnetsf  139 

trait."  These  two  portraits  at  Arbury  are  not, 
however,  the  only  representations  of  Mary  Fytton. 
Far  different  are  the  challenging,  provoking  face 
and  form,  which  are  undoubtedly  a  representation 
of  Mary  Fytton,  of  the  statue  in  the  church  at 
Gawsworth.  It  is,  as  it  kneels  there  today,  a 
pathetic  figure,  with  a  slightly  mutinous  expres- 
sion, and  assuredly  with  the  face  of  a  woman  of 
quick  wit.  The  countenance  in  the  Arbury  por- 
traits seems,  in  comparison,  order-loving,  conven- 
tional, regulated,  and  wholly  different  in  type,  or 
so,  at  least,  it  has  appeared  to  the  writer  of  these 
pages.  The  statue  is  one  of  a  group  in  a  sepulchral 
monument  on  the  north  side  of  the  chancel  in  the 
church  of  St.  James.  This  church  was  formerly, 
in  Mary  Fytton's  lifetime,  splendidly  and  elabo- 
rately decorated,  inside  and  out,  with  the  shields  of 
arms  and,  in  the  stained  glass  windows,  the  kneel- 
ing figures,  of  many  generations  of  Fyttons  and 
others.  (EsLVwaker's  East  Cheshire,  vol.,  ii,  p.  575.) 
It  is  noteworthy  that  the  effigy  of  Mary  Fytton 
bears  a  marked  family  resemblance  to  that  of  her 
sister  beside  her,  which  the  lady  on  the  right  in  the 
double  portrait  does  not  bear  to  the  lady  painted 
with  her.  The  statue  of  Anne  resembles  her  por- 
traits; the  statue  of  Mary  does  not  resemble  the 
portraits  attributed  to  her.     Lady  Newdegate,  also, 


140  ^Ijafesipeare's;  bonnets; 

speaks  of  the  lady  in  the  second,  or  Court,  por- 
trait as  giving  the  impression  of  a  "tall,  slight 
figure"  {Gossip  from  a  Muniment  Room,  ist  ed., 
p.  25),  and  this  is  true,  but  the  statue  of  Mary  at 
Gawsworth  is  not  of  that  kind,  but  is  of  a  decided 
figure  of  moderate  height,  and,  indeed,  does  in  no 
respect  resemble  the  lady  in  the  portraits.  The 
thinness  of  figure  is  also  noticeable  in  the  lady  on 
the  right  in  the  double  portrait.  The  evidence  of 
the  statue  is  wholly  contrary  to  the  identification 
of  her  in  the  portraits  at  Arbury. 

The  two  portraits  at  Arbury  present  the  only 
difficult  objection,  to  the  theory,  so  far  as  we  have 
noticed,  that  Mary  Fytton  was  the  original  of  the 
"Dark  Lady."  The  evidence  in  support  of  that 
position,  however,  especially  the  statue  at  Gaws- 
worth, is  too  strong  and  cumulative  to  be  cancelled 
by  family  portraits  which  are,  as  a  whole,  of  a  very 
uncertain  history.  As  it  is  said  by  Lady  Newde- 
gate,  the  correspondence  as  to  Mary  Fytton  was 
kept  locked  up,  even  from  the  immediate  family, 
for  nearly  three  hundred  years.  What  is  more  nat- 
ural than  that,  through  changes  of  ownership, 
and  the  very  usual  family  forgetfulness,  knowledge 
of  the  portrait  should  have  become  inaccurate,  and 
that  it  should  have  been  attributed  to  Mary  Fyt- 
ton because  of  its  appearance  in  connection  and  on 


^fiafegpeare'jf  ^oxmtisi  141 

the  same  panel  with  that  of  the  elder  sister  ?  When 
the  portrait  was  seventy-five  or  a  hundred  years 
old  the  legend  of  Mary  Fytton  might  easily  lead 
to  an  attribution  of  it  to  her.  In  an  article  in  The 
Theatre  for  December,  1897,  the  late  Dr.  F.  J. 
Furnivall  refers  to  Lady  Newdegate's  generous 
contribution  to  our  knowledge  of  Mary  Fytton, 
and  alludes  to  still  another  portrait  at  Arbury, 
which  is  incorrectly  labelled,  as  follows : 

She  has  not  given  a  photogravure  of  the  third  por- 
trait, on  wood,  at  Arbury,  with  the  inscription:"  Coun- 
tess of  Stamford,  2nd  daughter  of  Sir  Edward  Fitton, 
Knt.,"  which  she  showed  Mr.  Tyler  and  me,  in  1891, 
as  one  of  Mary  Fitton,  and  which  is  like  enough  to  the 
other  two  portraits  of  Mary  to  be  one  of  the  same  per- 
son, though  it  no  doubt  is  that  of  Miss  Mildred  Maxey, 
who  sent  it  to  the  first  Lady  Anne  Newdigate  [Mary's 
sister]  at  Arbury: 

"I  have,  sweete  sister  lefte  my  pecter  at  my  broth- 
er's loging  for  you.  I  think  it  not  worth  the  trobbel 
in  having  it  com  downe,  for  it  should  have  bine  drane 
in  a  canfis  [canvas],  and  this  is  a  horde  [board,  panel]; 
but  if  my  brother  Cooke  had  bine  in  the  tone  [town] , 
I  wold  [have]  taken  order  with  him  for  it ;  but  I  know 
if  you  do  send  to  him,  he  will  send  it  you  in  a  case." 

If  Lady  Newdegate,  Mr.  Tyler  and  I  were  right 
in  accepting  this  portrait  as  Mary  Fitton's  in  1891, 
and  Lady  N.  is  right  in  changing  her  mind  and  saying 
now  that  it  is  Mildred  Maxey's,  may  we  not  believe 
that  all  three  portraits  are  those  of  Miss  Maxey?  Mr. 
Tyler  has  no  doubt  that  they  are.    The  Mildred  por- 


i42  ^fjafegpeare'jf  ^onnttsi 

trait  is  certainly  like,  though  not  quite  the  same  as, 
those  claimed  as  Mary  Fitton's;  it  is  of  a  fair,  red-and- 
white  girl,  with  brown  hair  like  Mary's  and,  too, 
with  her  dark,  blue-grey  eyes.  Moreover,  the  hair  of 
Mary's  statue  in  Gawsworth  Church  seems  once  to 
have  been  coloured  black;  the  colour  can  only  be  seen 
now  in  the  interstices  of  the  coils  of  hair,  but  assuredly 
it  looks  black.  One  cannot  accept  as  conclusive  the 
evidence  of  the  Arbury  portraits  supposed  to  be  those 
of  Mary  Fitton. 

Dr.  Furnivall  meant  to  say  Miss  Cooke,  not 
Miss  Maxey.  "Mildred  (Cooke)  Lady  Maxey," 
as  Lady  Newdegate  describes  her  for  us,  was  own 
cousin  to  Sir  Robert  Cecil,  the  celebrated  Secretary 
of  State,  whose  mother  was  Lady  Burghley,  also 
Mildred,  "the  Lady  Mildreda,"  daughter  of  the 
scholarly  wSir  Anthony  Cooke,  of  Gidea  Hall,  Essex. 
The  quotation  illustrates  in  an  amusing  way  the 
uncertainty  which  surrounds  the  pictures  at  Ar- 
bury, and  how  little  reliance  can  be  placed  upon 
them  as  historical  evidence.  The  unreliable  Eigh- 
teenth century  inscription  again  connects  the 
third  picture  with  Mary  Fytton  by  calling  it  "2nd 
daughter  of  Sir  Edward  Fitton,  Knt.,"  but  also 
calling  it,  "Countess  of  Stamford." 

Mr.  Bridgeman  observes  that  at  Arbury,  Anne 
"would  be  within  a  drive  of  Hartshill,  near  Ather- 
stone,    then   the  residence  of   Mildred's  father, 


William  Cooke,  second  son  of  Sir  Anthony  Cooke." 
Atherstone  lies  5^2  miles  N.  N.  W.  from  Arbury 
Hall,  on  a  fairly  direct  road,  Hartshill  being  be- 
tween the  two,  and  three  miles  distant  from  Arbury 
Hall,  according  to  the  English  Ordnance  Map,  if 
the  roads  then  were  as  those  of  today.  Mr.  Bridge- 
man  further  says  of  this  (p.  170) :  "I  may  observe 
in  passing  that  I  can  find  no  evidence  that  Lady 
Newdigate  was  even  acquainted  with  Mildred 
Cooke  till  after  1596,  about  which  year  the  former 
came  to  live  at  Arbury."  Mr.  Bridgeman  does  not 
remember  that  Anne's  was  a  childhood  marriage, 
and  occurred  when  she  was  twelve  years  old,  in 
1587  (p.  3),  the  year  after  that  in  which  Arbury 
was  purchased  by  the  Newdigate  family  (p.  2). 
This  is  some  evidence,  stronger  or  weaker,  but  still 
evidence,  that  Anne  was  acquainted  with  her 
young  husband's  neighbours,  in  whom  she  had  an 
approaching  though  still  future  interest,  for  surely 
some  of  them  might  visit  her.  The  evidence,  such 
as  it  is,  is  in  plain  view.  Mr.  Bridgeman  further 
says  (p.  172),  that  Lady  Maxey  and  also  Lady 
Grey  were  "on  terms  of  intimacy  with  Lady 
Newdigate,"  and  among  the  number  of  ladies  who 
familiarly  addressed  her  in  their  correspondence  as 
"sister."  He  inclines,  however  (p.  173),  to  accept 
the  third  picture  as  one  of  Lady  Grey,  on  the  basis 


144  ^fjafefifpeare'g  ^otmets; 

of  the  Eighteenth  century  inscription  on  the  por- 
trait, which,  with  the  error  usual  in  the  Eighteenth 
century  inscriptions,  refers  to  the  Grey-Stamford 
family,  and  he  depends  upon  the  mentioning  of  a 
portrait  of  that  lady  in  Lady  Newdigate's  Will. 
But  Miss  Mildred's  letter  certainly  shows  that  a 
portrait  of  her  was  to  be  sent  to  Arbury,  and  with- 
out considering  the  degree  of  resemblance  which 
the  third  portrait  is  said  to  bear  to  the  double  por- 
trait and  the  second  portrait,  we  can  at  the  least 
say  that  there  is  no  preponderant  evidence  as  to  it 
in  either  the  one  direction  or  in  the  other. 

An  aunt  of  Mildred  Cooke,  also  Mildred  Cooke, 
was  the  wife  of  the  Lord  High  Treasurer,  the  illus- 
trious Lord  Burghley,  and  the  mother  of  Sir  Robert 
Cecil;  another  aunt,  Anne  Cooke,  was  the  wife  of 
the  Lord  Keeper  of  the  Great  Seal,  Sir  Nicholas 
Bacon,  and  mother  of  Anthony  and  Francis  Bacon. 
As  Mildred  Cooke  was  so  highly  connected,  it  is  by 
no  means  improbable  that  she  should  have  been  the 
lady  in  the  second  portrait,  the  lady  in  the  magni- 
ficent Court  dress.  She  would,  then,  be  the  lady 
painted  with  Anne  in  the  double  portrait.  This  is 
nothing  but  a  surmise,  but  it  accords  with  the  por- 
trait both  in  this  respect  and  in  her  age,  nineteen, 
and  also  in  her  situation  as  a  very  near  neighbour 
of  Anne's  in  the  latter's  future  home  at  Arbury. 


^ftafe£fpeare*)S  ^ovmttsi  145 

It  is  a  question  for  students  of  the  portraits  of 
Queen  Elizabeth's  days,  whether  her  face,  in  its 
expression  of  reserved  intellectuaHty,  has  not  a 
certain  degree  of  family  resemblance  to  that  of  Sir 
Robert  Cecil.  Certainly  it  is  not  in  the  least  like 
that  of  Anne  Fytton,  either  in  the  double  portrait 
or  in  that  lady's  other  likenesses,  and  it  is  assuredly 
in  the  second  portrait,  that  of  a  lady  of  great  dis- 
tinction. A  comparison  with  the  features  of  her 
aunt,  Lady  Burghley,  and  of  Sir  Robert  Cecil,  her 
cousin,  however,  does  not  show  any  marked  re- 
semblance, the  long,  pointed  chin  and  compressed 
lips  characteristic  of  them  not  being  distinctly 
marked  in  Mildred's  face;  she  still  may  have 
resembled  her  mother's  family  in  this.  Lady 
Burghley's  portrait  gives  the  impression  of  a  tall, 
slight  figure  such  as  Mildred's,  that  is,  such  as  the 
figure  of  the  lady  in  the  second  portrait. 

The  holly  and  the  palm,  devices,  either  badges  or 
charges,  sketched  on  the  sleeves  of  the  lady  on  the 
right  in  the  double  portrait,  it  seems  not  possible 
now  to  connect  with  Mildred  Cooke's  family  in 
any  of  its  known  branches,  nor  has  any  evidence 
been  found  through  these  emblems  identifying  the 
lady  on  the  right  in  any  particular.  The  quarter- 
ings  of  Miss  Mildred's  aunt  and  namesake.  Lady 
Burghley's,  shield  of  arms  are  said  to  be :  i .  Cooke ; 

10 


146  ^fjafesipeare'jss  ^onntt^ 

2.  Malpas;  3.  Machyn;  4.  Belknap;  5.  Boteler; 
6.  Sudeley;  7.  Mountford;  (Historical  Mono- 
graph, William  Cecil,  Lord  Burghley,  by  the  Rev'd 
Augustus  Jessop  and  others,  with  portraits  of  the 
Cecils,  p.  98),  but  whether  any  of  these  families  or 
others  in  the  ancestry  of  Anne  Fytton's  friend  and 
future  neighbour.  Miss  Mildred,  used  the  palm  or 
holly  as  either  a  badge  or  charge  is  an  elusive  ques- 
tion. They  do  not  appear  as  charges  in  the  blazon- 
ing of  the  arms  of  these  families  in  Burke's  ylrmona/ 
Bearings,  but  they  might  be  badges,  and  there- 
fore less  formal  and  more  easily  transmissible. 
Though  Mildred  Cooke's  mother,  if  an  heiress, 
could  transmit  them  as  armorial  bearings,  and 
could  indifferently  transmit  them  as  badges,  sup- 
posing her  to  have  a  right,  her  name  and  family 
are  not  stated  in  any  book  examined  by  us.  The 
palm  and  holly  have  been  used  quite  frequently  in 
heraldry;  we  have  gathered  a  little  unconnected 
and  apparently  unconnectable  evidence  as  to  them. 
A  John  le  Bouteller  is  mentioned  among  the  Nor- 
mans in  the  first  Crusade  on  a  roll  in  the  Library 
of  Bayeux  Cathedral.  There  were  several  families 
of  this  or  of  a  derivative  name  in  England,  among 
them  the  one  quartered  in  Lady  Burghley's  shield. 
A  Ralph  Boteler  appears  among  the  Crusaders  in 
the  second  Crusade  {The  English  Crusaders,  by 


^ijafegpeare^s!  ^onncts^  147 

J.  C.  Dansey ,  London,  1 849,  ?) .  Their  descendants, 
some  of  them,  might  perhaps  use  the  palm  as  a 
badge.  The  palm  several  times  occurs  on  escutch- 
eons or  crests.  A  Christopher  Cooke  of  Aires- 
ford,  Hants,  in  the  last  century,  had,  as  a  part  of  his 
crest,  a  wreath,  not  of  holly  but  of  laurel,  a  differ- 
ent leaf.  (William  Berry,  Encyclopaedia  Heraldica, 
vol.  ii,  London,  1828.)  The  evidence  is  scanty, 
nothing.  But  it  has  not  been  suggested  by  Mr. 
Bridgeman  or  by  Lady  Newdegate,  who  have  ac- 
cess to  some  at  least  of  the  family  records,  that 
these  emblems  were  ever  used  by  the  Fyttons 
indeed,  they  say  little  of  them;  their  presence  on 
the  dress  of  the  lady  on  the  right  in  the  double 
portrait  makes  it  particularly  improbable  to 
claim  her  as  a  daughter  of  the  Fyttons,  and 
especially  as  a  younger  daughter.  The  question 
is  yet  open  for  elucidation,  and  the  decisive 
evidence  of  the  palm  and  holly  must  be  left  here 
uninterpreted. 

A  list  of  Lady  Anne  Newdigate's  feminine  cor- 
respondents and  friends  would  be  of  advantage  in 
this  search,  and  might  perhaps  be  given  to  the 
public.  Two  other  of  her  most  intimate  friends, 
who  might  perhaps  have  been  represented  in  the 
double  portrait,  and  not  Mistress  Mildred  Cooke, 
are,  first,  Elizabeth,  daughter  of  Edward  Neville, 


148  ^fjafesfpeare'g  ^onnctjf 

Lord  Abergavenny,  and  wife  of  Sir  John  Grey,  of 
Groby.  Groby  is  in  Leicestershire,  ^}4  miles  from 
Leicester,  and  distant,  in  a  direct  Hne,  sixteen  miles 
northeast  from  Arbury.  "The  Manor  was  the 
birthplace  of  Lady  Jane  Grey  (i  537-1 554),  who 
was  Queen  of  England  for  thirteen  days."  {Bar- 
tholomew's Gazetteer,  1893.)  The  other  of  the  two 
ladies  was  also  Elizabeth,  and  was  the  wife  of  Sir 
John  Ashburnham  and  daughter  of  Sir  Thomas 
Beaumont.  Sir  Thomas,  who  married  an  heiress, 
had  two  residences,  one  at  Stoughton  Grange, 
Leicestershire,  and  the  other,  where  he  resided  at 
times,  at  Bedworth,  which  lies  two  miles  southeast 
from  Arbury,  two  and  a  half  miles  by  road.  Anne 
is  mentioned  in  her  correspondence  as  visiting 
there,  and  seems  to  have  been  on  most  friendly 
terms  with  the  family.  At  least  seven  families 
have  at  some  time  borne  holly  leaves  on  their  es- 
cutcheons, but  to  connect  them  with  the  friends 
of  Anne  Fytton  requires  fortunate  research,  viz., 
Worthington,  Woodward,  Weston,  Aernest,  Hussey , 
Hollingworth,  and  Moody  or  Mody.  (Glover's 
Ordinary  of  Arms,  Appendix  to  Edmondson,  vol.  i; 
Aubrey's  Wiltshire,  Part  i,  p.  25.)  Badges  were 
usually  painted  or  embroidered  on  banners,  liver- 
ies of  soldiers,  followers  and  retainers,  etc.;  they 
were  distinct  from  and  independent  of  the  coat 


^tafejfpeare'ji  bonnet j;  149 

armour.  Badges  were  greatly  in  vogue  in  England 
from  the  reign  of  King  Edward  I  until  that  of 
Queen  Elizabeth,  when  they  fell  into  disuse. 
(J.  Edmondson,  A  Complete  Body  of  Heraldry, 
vol.  i,  p.  189,  London,  1780.)  The  holly  was  the 
badge  of  Clan  Drummond,  we  are  told.  The 
Scottish  coat  of  Irvine  of  Drum  bears  holly  leaves. 
(J.  Woodward,  Treatise  on  Heraldry,  vol.  i,  p.  337.) 
The  evidence  amounts  to  nothing.  An  inquiry  at 
the  College  of  Arms,  London,  as  to  Miss  Mildred 
Cooke,  Lady  Grey  and  Lady  Ashburnham,  has 
had  the  following  courteous  answer: 

The  mother  of  Mildred  Cooke  was  Frances  Grey, 
daughter  of  John  Grey,  brother  of  the  Duke  of  Suffolk. 
I  do  not  think  either  holly  or  palm  fit  in  with  this  Mil- 
dred. Her  descent  was  roughly  as  follows:  I.  Philip 
Cooke,  married  Elizabeth,  daughter  and  heiress  of  Sir 
Henry  Belknape.  IL  Sir  John  Cooke,  married  Alice, 
daughter  and  heiress  of  Sir  William  Saunders  of  Ban- 
bury. IIL  Sir  Anthony  Cooke,  married  Anne  Fitz- 
William.  IV.  William  Cooke,  married  Frances  Grey. 
V.  Mildred  Cooke.  It  is  difficult  to  speak  with  cer- 
tainty about  badges.  Not  all  families  bore  them,  nor 
is  it  certain  that  all  are  recorded  as  in  the  case  of  Arms, 
though  many  are.  The  arms  and  crest  of  the  Maxeys 
were  talbots'  heads.  I  know  of  no  badge.  The  Greys, 
of  course,  did  not  bear  either  holly  or  palm.  The  Fitz- 
Williams  bore  a  trefoil  as  a  badge.  It  could  hardly  be 
mistaken  for  holly,  I  should  think.  The  Saunders  bore 
elephants'  heads  in  their  arms  and  crest.     The  Bel- 


150  ^f)afes;peare*s;  bonnets: 

knapes  bore  a  lizard  as  a  badge.     I  cannot  see  how 
either  holly  or  palm  could  come  in  here. 

Elizabeth,  daughter  of  Sir  Thomas  Beaumont,  and 
wife  of  Sir  John  Ashburnham,  seems  to  me  to  present 
more  possibilities.    The  crest  of  the  Ashburnhams  was 
an  ash  tree  out  of  a  coronet,  and  the  Beaumonts  are 
said  to  have  born  a  badge  of  a  broom  cod  (though  I 
cannot  trace  here  any  definite  authority  for  it).    The 
broom  cod  has  somewhat  the  semblance  of  palm,  and 
if  the  holly  might,  perchance,  be  ash,  the  identifica- 
tion seems  possible,  though  I  think  it  must  be  taken 
with  reserve.     The  Beaumonts  had  a  Plantagenet  de- 
scent, which  may  have  accounted  for  their  use  of  the 
broom,  if  a  fact.     I  cannot  find  any  record  of  either 
holly  or  palm  used  as  a  badge  at  that  period,  nor  can  I 
trace  the  descent  of  any  of  the  three  ladies  you  name, 
so  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  find  them  from  our  rec- 
ords, to  any  family  who  bore  either  holly  or  palm  in 
their  arms,   certainly  as  regards  direct  descent;  of 
course  the  female  descent  of  every  family  spreads 
indefinitely,  and  it  would  be  impossible  even  in  a  life- 
time to  trace  all  the  ramifications  of  all  the  females. 
But  taking  the  more  immediate  descent,   and  the 
probability  that  the  badges  (if  they  be  such),  refer  to 
the  male  descent,  or  at  most  to  an  immediate  female 
ancestor,  I  think  the  suggestion  I  have  given  affords 
the  only  possible  clue  out  of  the  three  ladies  whose 
names  you  give  me  to  work  on;  but  I  repeat  that  you 
cannot  regard  the  matter  as  absolutely  proved,  even  if 
the  badges,  when  examined,  can  be  read  into  the  pro- 
posed form.    It  cannot  be  put  higher  than  conjecture, 
with  a  reasonable  possibility,  taking  into  considera- 
tion all  the  circumstances. 


^fjafesfpearc's!  ^onnetJS  151 

Mr.  Bridgeman  observes  that  Mildred  (Cooke), 
Lady  Maxey,  could  not  have  been  painted  on  the 
double  portrait  because  she  "was  baptized  at  Rom- 
ford in  September,  1573,  so  that  in  1592  [the  date 
painted  on  the  double  portrait]  she  would  have 
been  in  her  nineteenth  not  her  fifteenth  year," 
thus  not  according  with  the  age,  fifteen,  given  to 
the  subject  of  the  portrait  by  the  inscription,  but 
if  the  maker  of  the  inscription  thought  that  her 
portrait  was  that  of  Mary  Fytton  the  argument  is 
beside  the  question.  Her  greater  age  than  Anne's 
accords  with  the  appearance  of  the  faces  of  the 
two  ladies  in  the  double  portrait.  Mr.  Bridgeman 
makes  a  point  of  the  "a  priori  probability"  that 
if  two  girls  are  painted  together  they  are  related; 
a  probability,  it  is  conceded,  but  not  a  certainty. 
Two  young  women,  if  intimate  friends,  might  be 
represented  in  a  picture  together.  If  Mildred 
Cooke,  Anne's  future  neighbour,  or  any  other  in- 
timate friend,  was  visiting  Anne  at  Gawsworth, 
Anne  might  think  it  proper  to  be  represented  in  a 
picture  with  her. 

Lady  Ashburnham  and  many  other  ladies  ad- 
dressed Anne  as  "Sister,"  as  was  the  fashion  of  the 
time  {Gossip  from  a  Muniment  Room,  the  Fytton 
Letters,  ist  ed.,pp.  50,  124,  135;  Meas.  for  Meas., 
I,  iv,  47;  M.  N.  Dream,  III,  ii,  199) ;  another  of  her 


152  ^i)aksiptavt*si  ^onneti 

"intimate"  friends  was  Margaret,  Lady  Hoby, 
daughter  of  Lord  Hunsdon;  she  had  a  large  ac- 
quaintance among  her  own  sex,  one  among  them 
of  general  interest  being  the  unfortunate  Lady 
Arabella  Stuart,  of  the  blood  royal,  later  a  victim 
of  State  policy.  The  evidence  inclines  to  the 
theory,  furthermore,  that  she  was  one  of  the  young 
ladies  who  are  contented  with  and  fond  of  their 
girl  friends,  as  she  did  not  leave  her  father's  house 
for  that  of  her  young  husband,  to  whom  she  had 
been  married  in  childhood,  until  she  was  twenty- 
one  or  twenty- two  years  old.  One  of  Anne's 
characteristics,  therefore,  seems  to  have  been  her 
disposition  to  friendships  with  other  ladies,  and 
this  strengthens  the  probability  that  the  lady 
painted  in  the  portrait  with  her  was  one  of  her 
many  friends  instead  of  her  sister,  Mary  Fytton. 
Moreover,  Mary,  in  her  girlhood,  did  not  live  at 
Arbury,  in  Warwickshire,  whither  her  sister  did  not 
go  until  after  the  picture  had  been  painted.  Mary 
lived  at  her  father's  house,  at  Gawsworth,  in 
Cheshire,  and  as  the  picture  was  doubtless  taken  by 
Anne  to  her  husband's  house,  at  Arbury,  when  she 
entered  upon  her  married  life  there,  no  inference 
can  be  made  from  its  appearing  on  the  walls  of 
Arbury  to  the  effect  that  it  is  a  portrait  of  Mary; 
if  it  was  a  portrait  of  one  of  Anne's  girl  friends,  it 


^fjafejfpeare's;  ^omtetBi  153 

would  inevitably  go  with  her  to  Arbury ;  as  Mary 
did  not  live  at  Arbury  but  at  Gawsworth,  the  ab- 
sence of  any  portrait  of  her  at  Arbury  does  not  call 
for  an  explanation.  Looking  at  the  particular 
circumstances  of  the  case,  if  there  had  been  ever 
any  portraits  of  Mary  Fytton,  of  the  larger  and 
ceremonial  kind,  at  Arbury,  they  might  and  un- 
questionably would  have  been  banished  from  the 
family  gallery  and  put  out  of  sight,  and  this  would 
also  make  it  rather  more  probable  that  the  por- 
traits which  are  there  today,  especially  the  second 
and  single  portrait  in  Court  dress,  are  not  of  her. 
There  is  no  compelling  reason  apparent  for  regard- 
ing the  double  portrait  as  a  portrait  of  two  sisters 
excepting  the  inscription  alone,  and  when  the  very 
considerable  evidence,  both  within  and  dehors  the 
portrait,  and  opposing  the  inference  that  the  in- 
scription was  cotemporary  with  the  portrait,  is 
considered,  our  conclusion  as  to  the  inscription 
appears  to  be  not  only  sound,  but  to  resemble  also 
that  reached  as  to  the  other  elements  of  the  por- 
trait, the  conclusion  that  the  picture  did  not  repre- 
sent the  two  sisters,  and  besides,  the  evident  dis- 
agreement between  the  inscription,  which  refers 
to  the  Fytton  sisters,  and  the  portrait,  which  does 
not  bear  the  inscription  out  at  all,  shows  of  itself 
that  the  inscription  was  later  than  the  portrait, 


154  ^fjafegpearc's;  ^ormttfi 

and  also  mistaken  as  to  one  of  the  ladies  repre- 
sented. 

Lady  Anne  Newdigate's  bequest  to  one  of  her 
daughters,  Lettice,  of  "my  tablet  with  my  sister 
picture  in  it,"  as  the  phrase  appears  in  her  Will,  is, 
at  the  present  time,  indefinite  in  its  description,  but 
Mr.  Bridgeman  presses  the  point  a  little.  As  she 
speaks  of  "my"  picture,  she  so  distinguished  it 
from  the  others  which  her  late  husband.  Sir  John, 
had  doubtless  made  a  disposition  of  by  his  Will, 
they  ordinarily  following  the  estate  to  the  heir. 
It  is  very  likely  that  the  "tablet"  in  question  was 
some  combination,  a  fanciful  article,  akin  to  the 
"gownes,  petticoats,  Jewells"  and  other  valuables, 
possibly  the  paraphernalia,  not  mentioned  for  us 
in  further  detail  in  the  quotation  from  the  Will  in 
the  Fytton  Letters,  and  which  were  divided  among 
the  five  children,  probably  a  miniature,  and  the 
subject  of  a  special  bequest.  Various  similar,  in- 
deed almost  identical,  instances  of  the  use  of  the 
word  "tablet"  in  connection  with  miniatures,  will 
be  found  in  the  mention  of  the  accounts  of  George 
Heriot  (he  is  remembered  in  The  Fortunes  of  Nigel), 
of  Edinburgh,  goldsmith  to  James  I  and  his  Queen, 
in  the  Morgan  Catalogue  of  Miniatures,  vol.  i, 
p.  52.  Lady  Newdigate  speaks  as  though  there 
were  but  one  object  to  which  her  words  could  be 


^fjafesfpearc'g  ^onneW  155 

applied.  A  miniature  of  Queen  Elizabeth  is  said 
to  have  been  "mounted  in  a  box."  (Williamson's 
History  of  Portrait  Miniatures,  vol.  i,  p.  12.) 
Another  of  Sir  Kenelm  Digby  and  Lady  Digby 
(1633),  "is  set  in  gold,  richly  inlaid  with  flowers 
in  enamel,  and  shuts  like  a  book."  {Ibid.,  p.  30.) 
It  is  certainly  possible  that  the  "tablet  with  my 
sister  picture  in  it"  was  something  of  this  kind. 
But  it  is  plain  that  Lady  Newdigate  would  not 
usually  have  a  power  of  disposition  over  the  easel 
portraits,  and  that  the  "tablet"  therefore  stood  on 
a  different  footing  from  them,  and  was  accurately 
described  in  the  clause  in  her  Will. 

The  bequest,  then,  was  of  a  portrait  of  Mary,  but 
not  a  part  of  the  gallery  at  Arbury ;  this  portrait, 
whose  existence  is  known  only  through  this  refer- 
ence to  it  in  the  Will,  must  have  perished  through 
neglect  or  indifference,  or  through  accident,  or 
have  been  lost  to  sight  in  some  way,  as  otherwise 
it  would  have  been  a  bar  to  the  mistake  made  in 
later  years  in  respect  to  Mary's  likeness  in  the 
double  portrait.  The  customary  fate  of  old  por- 
traits is  described  by  Dr.  Propert,  in  his  History  of 
Miniature  Art,  p.  41,  quoting  Horace  Walpole. 
Horace  Walpole's  paragraph  on  "the  gradual  de- 
cay and  removal  of  family  pictures  "  is  a  vivid  one, 
and  is  especially  applicable  to  portraits  or  minia- 


156  ^fjafegpeare'fii  ^onneW 

tures  which  have  no  family  value  to  recommend 
them.  {Anecdotes  of  Painting,  Wornum's  ed., 
vol.  ii,  p.  656.)  A  miniature  valued  as  little  as 
Mary's  was  likely  to  be,  after  her  sister's  death,  or 
a  combination  of  portrait  and  "tablet,"  would 
have  no  kindly  fate ;  it  might  have  been  taken  back 
by  Mary  after  Lettice' death  in  1625,  unmarried, 
and  after  Anne's  death  in  161 8,  and  have  disap- 
peared or  have  been  neglected  or  ruined  in  many 
ways. 

Mr.  Tyler's  investigations  have  shown  that  the 
monumental  effigies  of  the  Fytton  family,  in  Gaws- 
worth  Church,  Cheshire,  representing  the  Fytton 
family,  among  them  Lady  Fytton,  seated  and 
leaning  her  head  on  her  hand,  her  daughter,  Anne, 
and  her  second  daughter,  Mar^'  Fytton,  both 
kneeling,  are  statues  coloured  originally  to  re- 
semble life,  in  which  opinion  Mr.  Bridgeman  seems 
to  concur.  Mr.  Tyler  declares  that  Mary  Fytton 's 
statue  has,  or  had,  black  hair  and  eyes  as  has  the 
lady  of  the  sonnets.  Mr.  Bridgeman,  who  takes  a 
different  view,  says:  "I  do  not  dispute  the  fact 
that,  so  far  as  any  traces  of  colouring  remain  on 
the  monument,  Mary  Fitton's  hair  and  complexion 
appear  to  be  distinctly  darker  than  they  are  shown 
in  the  pictures,"  but  he  ascribes  this  colour  to  "the 
dust  and  grime  of  centuries,"  a  statement  which  is 


positively  traversed  by  Mr.  Tyler,  and  in  which  he 
is  to  some  extent,  as  we  have  seen,  followed  by  Dr. 
Furnivall.  The  statue  is,  beyond  doubt,  authentic. 
The  spectator  clearly  recognizes  in  this  effigy  the 
clever  and  forward  type  of  lady  to  which  Mary 
Fytton  belonged ;  the  statues,  as  they  were  coloured, 
were  certainly  intended,  at  least,  to  be  semblances 
of  the  originals.  The  sculptor  succeeded  in  his 
attempted  semblance  of  Anne,  as  we  can  see  by 
comparing  that  statue  with  her  portraits. 

The  portraits  called  Mary  Fytton's  at  Arbury, 
in  Warwickshire,  have  blue-grey  eyes  and  brown 
hair,  and  show  that  Mary  Fytton  was  not  the  origi- 
nal of  the  "  Dark  Lady."  But  that  they  are  like- 
nesses of  Mary  Fytton  is  well  contested  by  Mr, 
Tyler,  and  an  attempt  in  the  same  direction  is 
made  in  these  pages.  Her  sister,  Anne,  in  the 
double  portrait,  according  to  Lady  Newdegate, 
"has  dark  hair  and  eyes  and  arched  eyebrows." 
There  are  three  other  portraits,  which  appear  to 
give  the  same  record  of  her,  at  Arbury.  The 
controversy  appears  in  Lady  Newdegate' s  Gossip 
from  a  Muniment  Room,  the  Fytton  Letters,  2d 
ed.,  London,  1898,  with  an  Appendix  by  Mr.  C.  G. 
O.  Bridgeman,  and  in  Mr.  Tyler's  The  Herbert- 
Fytton  Theory:  a  Reply,  London,  1898,  with  a 
photograph  of  the  statues  at  Gawsworth,  and  in  his 


158  ^j)aypeare*fi;  ^onnctsi 

edition  of  the  sonnets.  Plays  upon  Mary  Fytton's 
story  are:  "Shakspeare  and  his  Love,"  by  Frank 
Harris,  with  an  introduction  (London,  1910); 
"The  Dark  Lady  of  the  Sonnets,"  by  G.  Bernard 
Shaw,  published  in  a  book  with  "  Misalliance"  and 
"Fanny's  First  Play,"  and  with  observations 
upon  the  Arbury  portraits  (Brentano,  New  York, 
1914);  and  "Mary,  Mary,"  by  George  Gordon 
(C.  C.  Baldwin),  in  a  book  entitled  Airy  Nothings, 
or  What  You  Will  (New  York,  191 7). 

If  we  were  to  indite  a  play  on  the  subject  of  this 
Note,  we  might  be  led  to  introduce  a  scene  in 
which  the  poet,  on  one  of  his  visits  to  Warwickshire 
called  on  Mary  at  Arbury  in  1602,  a  final  visit, — in 
the  absence  of  theNewdigates — and  we  would  bring 
them  before  the  double  portrait,  and  saying  of  it : 

S.       Who  is  that  with  your  sister? 

M.  That  is  a  relative  of  the  Cecils,  Mildred  Cooke, 
she  was,  a  great  friend  of  my  sister's,  married 
now. 

S.       No  doubt  it  is  much  valued  by  Mrs.  Newdigate. 

M.     Not  for  the  artist. 

S.       Who  was  he? 

M.  Some  one  staying  at. Macclesfield,  I  think;  I  for- 
get his  name.  They  did  it  on  impulse,  but 
Anne  thinks  the  world  of  it  now. 

S.  The  world  does  not  insure  portraits  that  stay 
unlabelled. 


^i)afe£^peare*fl;  ^omtetsi  159 

M.  I  believe  there  is  a  paper  on  its  back  with  the 
names,  but  it  must  be  ten  years  old  now,  and  I 
do  not  know  if  the  paper  is  there. 

It  is  improbable  that  any  such  incident  ever 
took  place,  and  perhaps  we  violate  the  best  can- 
ons of  historical  play-writing  in  suggesting  it,  but 
if  it  can  bring  before  the  reader  more  clearly  our 
theories  as  to  this  portrait,  and  its  origin,  it  will 
have  fulfilled  its  purpose.  Arbury,  in  the  Eigh- 
teenth-Nineteenth Century,  is  described  as  "Che- 
verel  Manor"  in  Mr.  GilfiVs  Love  Story;  Sir  Roger 
Newdigate,  the  identifier  of  the  portraits  of  1768, 
is  Sir  Christopher  Cheverel ;  the  novelist  was  born 
on  the  estate. 


MISCELLANEOUS    POINTS 

Mistress  Mary  Fytton  seems,  in  1598  or  1599, 
to  have  become,  perhaps,  one  of  the  subscribers  to 
an  undertaking  by  one  of  the  members  of  Shak- 
speare's  Company  to  dance  the  Morris  from  Lon- 
don to  Norwich;  at  all  events,  she  was  selected  by 
him  for  the  dedication  of  the  book  in  which  he  re- 


i6o  ^fjafesfpeare'fi!  bonnets; 

counted  this  memorable  exploit.  The  book  is 
William  Kempe's  Nine  dales  Wonder,  Performed 
in  a  daunce  from  London  to  Norwich  (London, 
1600),  dedicated: 

To  the  True  Ennobled  Lady,  and  his  most  bountifull 
Mistris,  Mistris  Anne  Fitton,  Mayde  of  Honour  to  the 
most  sacred  Mayde,  Royall  Queene  Elizabeth. 

This  is  a  merry  book.  Kempe  is  remembered 
in  Shakspearean  annals  as,  at  that  time,  the 
Clown,  jig-maker,  and  player  of  Low  Comedy 
parts  in  the  Lord  Chamberlain's,  that  is,  Shak- 
speare's  Company.  His  book  tells  us:  On  "the 
first  mundaye  in  Lent,"  1599, 1  "began  frolickly  to 
foote  it  from  the  right  honorable  the  Lord  Mayor's 
of  London  towards  the  right  Worshipfull  (and 
truely  bountifull)  Master  Mayor's  of  Norwich," 
covering  the  distance,  about  one  hundred  miles, 
in  nine  days,  not  continuously.  The  reader  will  be 
interested  to  know  that  his  route  lay  through  Rom- 
ford, Chelmsford,  Braintree,  Sudbury,  Bury  St. 
Edmunds,  Thetford  and  Hingham,  and  that  he  was 
attended  sometimes  by  hundreds  of  people,  some 
dancers  among  them  volunteering  to  put  on  the 
bells  as  Morris  dancers  (II  Hen.  VI,  III,  i,  366), 
and  join  him  in  his  very  rapid  forward  dance  to 
pipe  and  tabor.    He  describes  the  journey  in  ample 


§^f)a!k9ipttivt*si  B>ormttfi  i6i 

detail.      His  "Epistle  Dedicatorie"  concludes  as 
follows : 

But,  in  a  word,  your  poore  servant  offers  the  truth 
of  his  progresse  and  profit  to  your  honorable  view: 
receive  it,  I  beseech  you,  such  as  it  is,  rude  and  plaine, 
for  I  know  your  pure  judgement  lookes  as  soone  to  see 
beauty  in  a  Blackamoore,  or  hear  smooth  speech  from 
a  Stammerer,  as  to  finde  anything  but  blunt  mirth 
in  a  Morrice  dauncer,  especially  such  a  one  as 
Will  Kemp,  that  hath  spent  his  life  in  mad  Jigges  and 
merry  jestes.  Three  reasons  moove  mee  to  make  pub- 
lik  this  journey:  one  to  reprove  lying  fooles  I  never 
knew;  the  other  to  comend  loving  friends,  which  by 
the  way  I  daily  found;  the  third  to  shew  my  duety  to 
your  honorable  selfe,  whose  favours  (among  other 
bountifull  friends)  makes  me  (dispight  of  this  sad 
world)  judge  my  hart  Corke  and  my  heeles  feathers,  so 
that  me  thinkes  I  could  flye  to  Rome  (at  least  hop  to 
Rome,  as  the  old  Proverbe  is)  with  a  morter  on  my 
head.  In  which  light  conceite  I  lowly  begge  pardon 
and  leave,  for  my  Tabrer  strikes  his  huntsup,  I  must 
to  Norwich:  Imagine,  noble  Mistris,  I  am  now  setting 
from  my  Lord  Mayor's,  the  houre  about  seaven,  the 
morning  gloomy,  the  company  many,  my  hart  merry. 

Your  worthy  Ladiships  most 
unworthy  servant 

William  Kemp. 

As  to  the  reference  to  a  "Blackamoore,"  which 
has  been  made  a  matter  of  question,  a  reference 
which  certainly  should  not  occur  in  an  address  to 

IX 


1 62  ^fiafejfpeare^g  bonnets; 

a  brunette,  or  to  a  lady  of  so  dark  a  complexion  as 
the  identifiers  of  Mary  Fytton  with  the  "Dark 
Lady"  think  her  to  have  had,  as  Kempe  stated  her 
name  incorrectly  in  his  dedication  to  her  of  the 
book,  seeming  to  have  confounded  her  name  with 
that  of  her  sister,  of  whom,  also,  he  knew  little, 
as  that  lady  was  then  married,  and  had  changed 
her  family  name,  it  may  be  properly  inferred  that 
his  knowledge  of  her  was  distant,  and  only  that  of 
the  generality  of  actors,  and  it  is  probable,  there- 
fore, that  he  never  thought  at  all  of  her  complexion, 
when  writing  his  book.  While  the  names  of  ladies 
of  position  are  often  discussed,  their  complexions 
are  far  less  heard  of  by  the  public.  The  book  is 
evidence  that  Mistress  Fytton  was  a  name  particu- 
larly known  to  Shakspeare's  Company,  whether 
through  her  portrayal  as  Rosaline,  not  long  before, 
in  Love's  Labour's  Lost,  or  because  of  her  rumoured 
interest  in  their  fellow-actor,  Shakspeare,  or 
through  her  general  prominence,  or  in  some  other 
manner,  the  reader  can  consider  from  the  evidence 
we  have  as  to  her  life.  Her  selection  among  the 
other  subscribers  or  contributors,  or,  if  they  are  not 
implied  by  his  words,  and  they  certainly  seem  to  be 
so,  the  selection  of  herself  merely,  to  receive  the 
dedication,  indicates  a  preference  of  her,  and  by  a 
member  of  Shakspeare's  Company.    If  it  were  true 


^ijafejfpeare'ji  ^onnet£;  163 

that  there  was  that  which  made  rumours  of  her 
run  through  the  membership  of  the  Company,  the 
whispers  of  "lying  fooles, "  after  the  pubHcation  of 
The  Passionate  Pilgrim,  for  instance,  in  the  year 
before  Kempe  pubhshed  his  account  of  his  trip, 
Kempe's  allusion — as  it  is  hard  to  assign  limits  to 
what  so  inveterate  a  jester  might  say — might  be 
merely  his  unrestrainable  habit  of  speech  put  in 
writing.  But  such  an  interpretation  appears  quite 
unnecessary.  The  word  "  Blackamoore "  is  an 
allusion  used  in  the  merry  vein  in  which  the  book 
is  written,  and  therefore  had  no  personal  intention, 
and  his  mistaking  her  baptismal  name,  and  the 
conventional  style  of  his  more  direct  address  to 
her,  with  his  free  manner  of  speech  otherwise, 
indicate  that  his  knowledge  of  her  was  distant  and 
impersonal,  and  that  he  merely  blundered  in  his 
characteristically  outspoken  address.  Blacka- 
moors were  still  few  in  the  days  of  Queen  Elizabeth, 
alluded  to  as  evidences  of  the  outlying  world  of  dis- 
covery and  adventure,  and  this,  of  course,  was  the 
motive  for  Kempe's  careless  reference  to  them. 
Mary  Fytton's  sister  was,  as  we  know,  Anne,  but 
not  Anne  Fitton,  as  she  had  been  married  long 
before,  by  contract  for  thirteen,  actually  for  about 
four  or  five  years,  and  at  that  time,  of  course,  was 
addressed  by  her  husband's  name,  Newdigate,  and 


1 64  ^fjafesipeare's;  bonnets; 

particularly  in  matters  of  form,  such  as  this  dedica- 
tion ;  she  was  never  a  Maid  of  Honour,  though  from 
time  to  time  she  must  have  come  to  London,  where 
her  father  had  a  house,  and  to  the  Court,  and  thus 
had  been  heard  of  by  Kempe  sufficiently  to  con- 
fuse her  name  with  her  sister's.  She  was  assuredly 
of  a  dark  complexion.  The  book,  then,  is  evidence 
that  Shakspeare's  Company  had  heard  of  this 
Maid  of  Honour  somewhat  more  than  of  the  others, 
but  very  questionable  evidence  as  to  Mary's 
complexion.  The  book  is  clear  evidence  that 
Kempe  had  no  personal  acquaintance  with  her 
sister,  Mrs.  Newdigate,  for  when  he  alluded  in  his 
book  to  a  Blackamoor,  he  could  not  have  thought 
of  her  complexion.  He  might  have  known  of 
Mary's  complexion  and  not  of  her  sister's,  we  ad- 
mit, but  it  is  no  less  true  that  his  knowledge  of 
neither  was  accurate  in  respect  to  their  names. 
While  it  is  plain  that  there  was  an  innuendo  in  his 
words,  the  best  inference  from  the  book,  and  from 
what  little  we  know  of  him,  and  of  his  and  of 
most  other  common  actors'  probable  relations 
with  the  Court,  is  that  he  was  not  thinking  about 
the  lady's  complexion  at  all  when  he  wrote  them, 
and  that  the  references  to  a  Blackamoor  and  to  a 
Stammerer  were  only  the  studied  expression  in  his 
writing  of  the  tested  and  proved  witticisms  with 


^tiafejfpeare'si  ^otmeW  165 

which  he  was  wont  to  entertain  his  audiences,  at 
times,  in  the  theatres. 

A  sonnet  suitable  for  private  reading  only,  and 
whose  existence  is  all  but  positive  proof  that  this 
series  of  sonnets  was  never  intended  by  Shakspeare 
for  publication,  has  been,  with  some  reason,  said 
to  bear  upon  the  question  at  issue,  whether  the 
"Dark  Lady"  was  Mary  Fytton.  Shakspeare 
speaks,  in  the  intimate  sonnet,  CLI,  of  a  "triumph 
of  love,"  and  of  her  as  his  "triumphant  prize," 
which  would  agree  with  an  intrigue  with  a  person- 
age of  the  Court,  and  it  seems  to  be  probable  that 
he  cites  her  name  as  if  in  fault,  "thy  name,"  i.  e., 
Fitton.  Mr.  Tyler  has  discussed  this  matter  in  his 
edition  of  the  sonnets,  pp.  82,  313,  referring  to 
Cymbeline,  IV,  i,  6.  In  Ormerod's  History  of 
Cheshire  (2d  ed.,  London,  1882,  vol.  iii,  p.  550), 
in  speaking  of  the  ruins  of  the  old  Hall  of  the  Fyt- 
tons  at  Gawsworth,  the  author  says : 

Over  the  door  of  the  old  hall  is  a  carved  representa- 
tion of  the  coat  of  Fitton,  with  sixteen  quarterings, 
with  a  motto  in  a  garter  introducing  the  words  fit 
ONUS  LEVE  in  allusion  to  the  name. 

A  Latin  inscription  under  the  sculpture  records 
that  it  was  made  at  Galway  in  Ireland,  '  *  Galviae  in 


1 66  ^fjafesfpeare'sf  ^onnet£i 

Hibernia,"  in  1570  for  Sir  Edward  Fyton,  Lord 
President  of  the  Council  for  Connaught  and  Tho- 
mond.  He  was  also  the  "Treasurer  at  Wars,  Vice- 
Treasurer  and  General  Receiver"  for  Ireland,  and 
he  was  paternal  grandfather  to  Mary  Fytton.  Mr. 
J.  A.  Froude  in  his  History  of  England  (vol.  x,  p. 
515),  mentions  him  in  a  picturesque  and  character- 
istic circumstance.  Sir  Edward  was  one  of  the 
energetic  and  notable  men  of  his  day.  There  is  a 
fine  brass  to  him,  mentioning  also  his  wife  and 
fifteen  children,  in  St.  Patrick's  Cathedral  in  Dub- 
lin. (Ormerod,  loc.  cit.;  Murray's  Handbook  for 
Ireland.)  The  allusion  in  the  motto  was  perhaps 
to  the  duties  of  his  office  in  Ireland,  that  is,  that 
he  was  fit  for  them,  and  they  a  light  burden,  or,  as 
a  friend  suggests,  to  whom  the  problem  was  put, 
that  he  was  fit  for  his  position,  and  his  rule  a  light 
burden  on  Ireland.  Literally  it  is :  The  burden  is 
made  light.  Curious  passages,  playing  on  the  word, 
occur  in  Love's  Labour's  Lost,  IV,  i,  131,  145,  and 
see  Twelfth  Night,  III,  i,  21. 

On  the  Fytton  monument  in  the  church  at  Gaws- 
worth  is  a  tablet  with  verses,  concluding  thus : 

Here's  the  blest  man,  his  wife  the  fruitfull  vine, 
The  children  th'  olive  plants,  a  gracefull  line, 
Whose  soule's  and  body's  virtues  sentence  them 
FiTTONs,  to  weare  a  heavenly  diadem. 


^fjafejfpeare'jf  ^onnetj^  167 

The  punctuation  and  capitals  are  as  given  by 
Dr.  Ormerod.  The  meaning  of  the  last  line  is,  of 
course,  that  the  family  were  fit  ones  to  wear  the 
diadem.  The  reference  is  to  the  family  of  the  first 
baronet.  Sir  Edward,  Mary's  brother,  who  had 
twelve  children. 

Perhaps  the  name  Mary  gave  to  her  horse, 
"Grey  Fitton,"  which  was  kept  for  her  in  1598  at 
the  Queen's  stables,  was  another  instance  of  this 
play  upon  the  name.  (Cal.  Salis.  MSS.,  Part  8, 
p.  417.)  There  seems  to  be  no  reason  to  doubt 
that  the  name  was  punned  on  at  times,  and  per- 
haps habitually,  by  the  family,  which  would  ex- 
plain Shakspeare's  words,  "thy  name." 

Sir  Edward  Fytton,  the  father  of  Mary  Fytton 
and  son  of  the  Sir  Edward  Fytton  first  mentioned, 
was  also  greatly  interested  in  Ireland  as  patentee  of 
11,515  acres  in  Munster  (the  reader  will  be  inter- 
ested to  observe  that  there  is  a  curious  reference 
to  Ireland,  in  connection  with  verse-writing  to  a 
lady,  in  As  You  Like  It,  III,  ii,  187;  Hamlet  also, 
without  necessity,  invokes  St.  Patrick  as  witness  to 
the  trouble  about  him,  I,  v,  136),  and  he  is  said  to 
have  held  office  for  some  years  as  Lord  President 
of  Munster.  (Earwaker's  East  Cheshire,  vol.  ii, 
p.  555.)  He  appears  to  have  been  a  Member  of 
ParHament;   he   was   Mayor   of   Macclesfield   in 


1 68  fef)afejfpeare*£{  feonneW 

Cheshire  ( 1 599- 1 602 ) .  Gaws  worth  .where  was  the 
family  residence,  is  a  village  about  three  miles 
S.  W.  of  Macclesfield.  It  is  said,  however,  that  he 
was  disappointed  in  not  succeeding  his  father  as 
Vice-Treasurer  of  Ireland;  he  seems  not  to  have 
been  so  stirring  a  man. 

Sonnet  CXLII  criticises  the  lady  of  the  sonnets, 
and  perhaps  refers  in  part  to  the  circumstances 
upon  which  CLII,  1-4,  is  based.  Line  8  of  CXLII, 
if  compared  with  his  general  portrait  of  the  lady, 
and  with  CXL,  9-14,  can  best  be  taken  with  much 
reserve,  and  as  pointing  partly,  perhaps,  to  the 
lady's  indifferent  treatment  of  her  marriage  en- 
gagements, and  chiefly  to  her  lover's  family.  The 
poet's  disposition  seems  to  have  been  toward 
jealous  and  severe  utterances,  as  in  CXXXVII,  6, 
which  rather  refers  to  a  common  inclination  toward 
all  men,  or,  more  precisely,  to  his  "over-partial 
looks"  as  having  been  placed  in  competition  with 
those  of  others,  than  to  anything  more  serious. 
The  same  undue  reproach  is  found  in  his  violent 
words  in  CXLVII,  14,  in  all  probability  not  as 
yet  quite  justified,  and  in  the  jealous  censures  of 
CXXXI,  13,  and  CXLVIII,  14.  From  the  point 
of  view  of  an  interpretation  of  the  sonnets  as  if 
addressed  to  Mary  Fytton,  there  is  no  doubt  that 


§bf)akiptaxt*9i  ^tmmti  169 

the  poet  was  too  severe,  but  also  that  he  had  cause 
for  his  reproaches,  for  he  was  not  the  only  one  who 
questioned  the  lady's  conduct,  as  we  shall  see 
further  on. 

In  The  Passionate  Pilgrim  (No.  i),  occurs  a 
variant  or  draught  of  CXXXVIII,  containing  the 
following  quatrain : 

But  wherefore  says  my  love  that  she  is  young  ? 
And  wherefore  say  not  I  that  I  am  old? 
O,  love's  best  habit  is  a  soothing  tongue, 
And  age,  in  love,  loves  not  to  have  years  told. 

The  first  line  has  been  changed  in  the  later  ver- 
sion of  the  Quarto,  as  follows : 

But  wherefore  says  she  not  she  is  unjust  ? 
And  wherefore  say  not  I  that  I  am  old? 
O,  love's  best  habit  is  in  seeming  trust. 
And  age,  in  love,  loves  not  to  have  years  told. 

The  phrase  "that  she  is  young,"  which  has  some- 
times been  thought  to  show  that  the  "Dark  Lady" 
was  past  her  youth,  can  be  understood  when  we 
remember  that  Mary  Fytton  became  twenty  years 
old  in  June,  1598,  the  year  in  which  the  sonnet  was 
probably  written,  Shakspeare  himself  being  at  the 
time  thirty-four,  and  the  line  therefore  can  be 
taken  as  a  gentle  reminder  of  the  interesting  cir- 


170  ^f)a'kiptaxt*i  ^mntti 

cumstance.  The  lady's  lack  of  explicitness  in  the 
version  in  The  Passionate  Pilgrim,  is  as  to  her  age; 
in  the  version  in  the  Quarto  it  is  turned  as  to  his 
age  exclusively,  the  original  statement  referring  to 
her  age  having  been  changed,  it  may  be,  because  of 
its  publication  in  The  Passionate  Pilgrim,  or,  per- 
haps, independently  of  that  publication,  through 
general  principles  of  reserve.  Lord  Herbert  prob- 
ably came  to  Court  in  June,  1598,  and  therefore 
about  at  the  date  of  this  sonnet,  which  was  accord- 
ingly one  of  the  earlier  of  the  series,  and  unaffected 
by  his  influence,  as  was  CLI,  and  this  is  confirmed 
by  both  its  manner  and  its  matter. 

The  sonnets  to  the  "Dark  Lady"  are  strange 
sonnets  for  so  great  a  man,  but  they  will  seem  to  be 
so  only  until  their  author's  mind,  the  direct  habit 
of  speaking  of  the  day,  and  the  involved  circum- 
stances of  the  case,  are  taken  into  account.  It  is 
most  unlikely  that  they  were  published  on  his 
initiative,  or  that  they  were  circulated  in  MS.  at 
all.  They  are  easy  to  censure,  and  yet  there 
breathes  through  them  a  spirit  of  self-reproach  that 
in  part  redeems  them,  and  redeems  their  writer 
from  the  imputation,  if  any  should  attempt  to 
bring  it,  of  moral  indifference.  The  moral  struggle, 
which  is  so  plainly  evident,  raises  them  far  above 


^tafejipeare's;  bonnets;  171 

the  mere  verses  of  animal  passion  of  which  there 
were  many  in  the  days  of  the  EngHsh  Renaissance, 
but  from  which  class  of  writing  they  are  widely 
separated.  More  and  more  enamoured,  and  un- 
able for  more  than  one  reason  to  marry,  he  was  for 
a  time  overborne  by  his  passion,  and  these  sonnets 
are  a  record  of  his  romance  and  of  his  regret,  a 
record  of  regret  basing  itself  on  facts,  and  coming, 
as  we  may  think,  in  true  Shakspearean  manner,  to 
an  unshakable  conclusion.  No  man  who  has 
studied  the  bright  row  of  Shakspeare's  heroines, 
from  Juliet  to  Perdita,  Miranda  and  Imogene,  can 
understand  him  as  other  than  a  respecter  of 
womanhood. 

As  to  Antony  and  Cleopatra,  if  any  one  of  his 
plays  is  his  masterpiece,  in  respect  to  his  general 
ability,  it  is  this.  The  first  scene,  in  which  he 
moves  with  ease  in  a  gigantic  power,  the  passage 
where  Cleopatra  makes  Antony  a  mock  reverence 
— "I'll  seem  the  fool  I  am  not;  Antony  will  be 
himself." — is  written  in  a  very  great  style;  you 
cannot  match  it,  in  that  respect,  in  Othello  or  in 
Hamlet.  It  is  true  that  we  cannot  sympathize  with 
Antony  as  we  can  with  Othello  or  Hamlet,  still  less 
with  Cleopatra,  but  for  consummate  mastery  in 
tragedy,  this  play  bears  the  palm.  The  man  who 
can  understand  and  read  the  last  part  of  this  drama 


172  ^Ijafesfpeare'g  bonnets; 

and  not  be  affected  by  it,  does  not  live,  or,  if  he 
lives,  we  do  not  envy  him.  A  possible  prototype 
for  Cleopatra  is  perhaps  to  be  found  in  the  lady 
addressed  in  the  following  sonnet : 

O,  from  what  power  hast  thou  this  powerful  might 
With  insufficiency  my  heart  to  sway? 
To  make  me  give  the  lie  to  my  true  sight, 
And  swear  that  brightness  doth  not  grace  the  day  ? 
Whence  hast  thou  this  becoming  of  things  ill, 
That  in  the  very  refuse  of  thy  deeds 
There  is  such  strength  and  warrantise  of  skill, 
That,  in  my  mind,  thy  worst  all  best  exceeds? 
Who  taught  thee  how  to  make  me  love  thee  more, 
The  more  I  hear  and  see  just  cause  of  hate? 
O,  though  I  love  what  others  do  abhor. 
With  others  thou  shouldst  not  abhor  my  state: 
If  thy  unworthiness  raised  love  in  me. 
More  worthy  I  to  be  beloved  of  thee. 

Sonnet  CL. 

Mary  Fytton,  in  her  appearance  in  her  statue, 
in  what  we  know  of  her  life,  and,  as  far  as  our 
knowledge  extends,  and  it  is  considerable,  in  her 
characteristics,  closely  resembles  this  lady  and  in 
no  way  differs  from  her,  unless  we  rely  upon  the 
incorrectly  inscribed  portrait  claimed  to  be  of  her 
at  Arbury.  Sir  William  Knollys,  Mary's  lover,  as 
we  shall  see  further  on,  would  have  approved  of 
every  word  in  this  sonnet  as  a  description  of  her. 
In  looking  at  the  statue,  the  words  arise  in  the 


memory,  "Where's  my  serpent  of  old  Nile?"  for 
the  type  is  there,  permanent  in  stone.  The  play 
might  be  called  "Cleopatra,"  for  she  is  by  far  the 
leading  character  in  the  play.  If  we  entertain  the 
speculation  that  Antony's  ruin  by  Cleopatra  should 
find  its  origin  in  Shakspeare's  ruin  at  Court  by 
Mary  Fytton,  we  base  conjecture  on  conjecture, 
and  a  speculation,  though  not  wholly  devoid  of 
basis,  it  must  remain. 

Several  identifications  of  the  lady  of  the  sonnets, 
other  than  with  Mary  Fytton,  have  been  made 
recently,  for  instance,  with  Mrs.  Davenant  of 
Oxford,  Mrs.  Field  of  London,  a  Moorish  hostess  in 
Southwark,  or  the  goddess  Fortuna,  and  there  is 
always  in  the  background  the  theory  that  we  have 
no  record  or  remembrance  of  her  at  all.  Serious 
evidence  to  support  any  one  of  these  identifications 
seems  not  yet  to  have  been  put  forward.  It  is  not 
surprising  that  it  should  be  difficult  to  identify  the 
lady  to  whom  the  "Dark  Lady"  sonnets  were  ad- 
dressed. After  three  centuries,  or  after  only  a  few 
years  had  passed,  a  love-affair  or  intrigue,  which 
did  not  result  in  marriage,  and  which  was  kept 
from  public  attention,  would  not  usually  leave 
many  traces.  Beyond  the  sonnets  themselves, 
which  were  not  intended  for  circulation,  the  record 
consists  only  of  scattered  fragments  of  evidence, 


174  ^fjafesipeare'jf  B>onntii 

and  these  must  be  studied  together  if  we  would 
have  any  probable  theory  as  to  who  the  lady  was. 

Sonnet  CLII,  the  last  sonnet  of  the  "Dark 
Lady"  series,  as  they  appear  in  the  Quarto,  has  in 
its  third  line  a  statement  which  is  apparently  in- 
applicable to  a  young,  unmarried  woman. 

In  loving  thee  thou  know'st  I  am  forsworn, 
But  thou  art  twice  forsworn,  to  me  love  swearing; 
In  act  thy  bed-vow  broke,  and  new  faith  torn, 
In  vowing  new  hate  after  new  love  bearing. 
But  why  of  two  oaths'  breach  do  I  accuse  thee, 
When  I  break  twenty!    I  am  perjured  most; 
For  all  my  vows  are  oaths  but  to  misuse  thee, 
And  all  my  honest  faith  in  thee  is  lost. 

The  answer  to  this  difficulty  is  a  strong  confirma- 
tion of  the  theory  that  Mary  Fytton  was  the  lady 
so  unmeasuredly  reproached.  The  words  seem  to 
be  an  allusion  to  Mary  Fytton's  exact  status  in 
respect  to  her  marriage  engagements  at  the  mo- 
ment. She  had  on  her  hands,  as  the  records  seem 
to  show,  two  existing  engagements  to  marry.  In 
Lord  Salisbury's  Calendar  of  Manuscripts  occurs 
a  letter  written  by  Sir  Edward  Fytton,  Mary's 
father,  to  Sir  Robert  Cecil,  the  Secretary  of  State, 
asking  his  intervention  in  a  question  arisen  between 
Sir  Edward  and  the  Vice-Treasurer  of  Ireland.    It 


seems  from  the  letter  that  a  marriage  portion  for 
Mary  had  at  some  time  been  lodged  with  Sir  Henry 
Wallop,  the  then  Vice-Treasurer,  and  that  its 
return  was  now  requested,  but  that  the  request  had 
been  evaded  by  Sir  Henry  Wallop's  son  and  suc- 
cessor in  office,  Henry  Wallop,  on  the  ground  that 
Sir  Edward's  or  Mary's  acquittance  would  not  be 
sufficient.  It  may  be  taken  that  the  Vice-Treas- 
urer feared  that  the  once  intended  bridegroom 
might  still  come  forward  and  press  his  claim  for  it. 
Mary,  very  likely,  had  been  married,  as  was  her 
sister,  Anne,  in  childhood,  and  the  match  after- 
wards disapproved  and  put  aside.  The  letter,  in 
the  abbreviated  but  substantially  complete  form 
in  which  it  has  been  given  to  the  public,  reads 
{Hist.  MSS.  Com.,  Salis.  MSS.,  Part  10,  p.  18) : 

Good  Mr.  Secretary,  help  my  daughter  to  her  por- 
tion, which  has  been  so  long  in  Sir  Henry  Wallop's 
hands.  If  you  would  send  for  Mr.  Wallop  and  ask 
whether  he  has  not  good  discharge  for  the  same  and 
such  as  Mr.  Treasurer,  his  father,  himself  desired,  you 
would  see  his  evasions;  without  this  my  poor  daughter 
will  be  much  hindered;  wherefore  I  commend  her  cause 

to  your  protection. 

Gawsworth,  Jan.  zg  \i6oo\. 

The  letter  appears  in  its  original  form  in  Mr. 
Tyler's  edition  of  the  sonnets  (p.  86),  with  the  date, 
January  29,  1599,  and  the  original  letter  is  so  en- 


176  ^fjafegpcare's;  ^orntets; 

dorsed,  but  the  endorsement  meant,  at  the  time 
when  it  was  made,  and  as  it  would  be  written  at 
present,  January  29,  1600.  As  Sir  Henry  Wallop, 
long  time  Vice-Treasurer,  died  in  office,  April  14, 

1599,  and  was  directly  succeeded  in  office  by  his 
son,  Henry  Wallop,  and  as  this  change  in  office  is 
referred  to  in  the  letter,  the  date  of  the  letter,  as 
endorsed,  must  be  January  29,  1 599-1 600,  that  is, 
January  29,  1600,  according  to  our  present  system 
for  the  commencement  of  the  year.  The  letter  is 
dated  by  Sir  Edward  only  January  29th.  His 
omission  of  the  year  is  not  very  material,  however, 
as  the  following,  second,  letter  is  fully  dated  in 

1600.  As  the  sonnet  in  question  was  probably 
written  in  or  just  before  1599,  the  year  in  which 
Sonnet  CXLIV  was  published,  this  engagement  or 
marriage,  when  the  sonnet  was  written,  was  still  in 
existence,  and  the  bridegroom  probably  still  living, 
for  a  difficulty  could  in  1600  be  made,  as  appears 
by  the  letter,  about  cancelling  the  financial  ar- 
rangement. This  still  pending  matrimonial  en- 
gagement may  then  account  for  the  poet's  bitter 
and  angry  reproof,  "In  act  thy  bed- vow  broke." 
It  seems  clear  that  the  phrase,  ' '  In  act  thy  bed-vow 
broke,"  implies  a  limitation,  and  this  qualification 
of  the  broken  vow  corresponds  with  Mary's  situa- 
tion, for  while  the  vow  was  broken  in  act,  it  was 


^})afes!peare*s;  ^onnetjl  177 

still  broken  in  respect  to  an  inchoate  and  incom- 
plete childhood's  contract  only,  which  had  not 
attained  the  full  estate  of  marriage,  and  also  could 
be  put  aside  and  broken  off  if  it  proved  desirable  to 
do  so.  There  is  a  further  letter  in  Lord  Salisbury's 
collection  from  Sir  Edward  Fytton  to  Sir  Robert 
Cecil,  of  August  5,  1600,  in  which  the  negotiation 
or  the  dispute  as  to  the  dowry  is  described  prob- 
ably as  in  course  of  settlement  {ibid.,  p.  265) : 

I  find  by  my  daughter  how  much  I  am  maligned  by 
some  of  whom  I  have  far  better  deserved;  .  .  .  if  I 
prove  not  innocent  of  all  devices,  gain  or  deceits,  even 
so  far  as  my  dearest  have  thought  me  too  friendly  with 
them  that  deal  now  thus  with  me,  let  me  be  disgraced. 
But  I  account  myself  most  happy  to  be  heard  before 
your  Honours,  .  .  .  My  daughter  in  her  love  writes 
she  wishes  my  present  attendance  to  purge  myself; 
but  I  hold  it  more  fit  to  be  sure  to  meet  my  accuser  face 
to  face,  where  I  hope  my  innocency  shall  free  me,  and 
therefore  I  will  stay  until  I  may  know  your  pleasure 
whether  I  shall  come  until  my  adversary  be  present. 
I  have  sent  up  my  bills,  wherein  Sir  Henry  Wallop 
stands  in  debt  to  me  in  £1200,  which  I  have  assigned 
to  my  daughter  Mary,  and  by  direction  have  sent  them 
into  Ireland,  there  to  have  them  viewed  and  allowed 
by  the  Commissioners  lately  there,  to  the  end  they 
might  have  all  their  dues,  as  is  by  your  Honours  or- 
dered. I  now  beseech  you  to  stand  good  to  her,  and 
further  that  Sir  Henry  Wallop  may  give  her  her  due. 

Gawsworth,  5  August,  1600. 

13 


Henry  Wallop  seems  to  have  been  recently- 
knighted  ;  he  was  probably  one  among  the  numer- 
ous knights  made  by  Essex  during  the  Irish  cam- 
paign of  1599  (Chamberlain's  Letters,  Camden  So- 
ciety, notes,  pp.  5  and  60) ;  that  he  was  called  "Mr. 
Wallop"  in  the  letter  of  January  29,  1600,  was  per- 
haps an  oversight  of  Sir  Edward's.  What  was 
the  final  termination  of  the  dispute  has  not  been 
brought  to  light — it  was  probably  settled  out  of 
Court  in  the  succeeding  year  of  public  scandal — 
but  it  is  abundantly  clear  that  there  was  a  matri- 
monial entanglement  of  Mary's  which  might  ac- 
count for  one  of  the  broken  oaths  of  the  sonnet. 

An  explanation  of  the  second  oath-breach  re- 
ferred to  in  the  sonnet  is  made  possible  for  us  by 
Lady  Newdegate's  publication  of  the  letters  of  the 
Fytton  family,  the  letters  written  to  Anne  (Fytton), 
Lady  Newdigate,  the  sister  of  Mary.  The  young 
lady's  permitted,  but  scarcely  permissible,  rela- 
tion to  her  quasi-parental,  married  admirer,  Sir 
William  Knollys — which  is  touched  on  further  on 
in  this  Note — being  considered,  it  is  only  necessary 
to  admit,  and  it  seems  quite  clear,  that  she,  before 
the  sonnet  was  written,  had  more  or  less  pledged 
herself  to  him,  to  interpret  the  phrase  in  the  sonnet, 
"and  new  faith  torn,"  as  meaning  this  second 
engagement,  which  the  poet  charged  her  with  hav- 


^f)afes;peare*sf  bonnets!  179 

ing  contracted  and  then  broken.  The  "vowing 
new  hate"  might  well  apply  to  the  elderly  and 
married  lover,  for  it  meets  his  pretensions  exactly. 
The  old  hate,  which  is  implied  in  the  phrase  "new 
hate,"  will  mean  her  first  dislike  to  his  advances; 
the  "new  love  bearing"  will  refer  to  the  inception 
of  her  engagement  to  Sir  William.  The  word 
"faith,"  it  may  be  observed,  is  ciiriously  accurate 
in  its  application  to  the  relation  between  Mary  and 
Sir  William.  Her  "two  oaths'  breach"  then  would 
mean  her  breaking  both  her  earlier  and  her  later 
engagement,  which  were  coexistent,  under  the 
stress  of  her  attachment  to  the  poet,  as  it  is  repre- 
sented in  the  sonnets.  Lord  Herbert's  growing  in- 
fluence, independently  of  that  of  Shakspeare,  upon 
her  attitude  toward  Sir  William,  her  hate  or  her 
acceptance,  should,  however,  be  kept  in  mind  in 
reading  and  interpreting  the  sonnet,  and  especially 
in  understanding  the  towering  passion  in  which 
Shakspeare  seems  to  have  written  it.  This  is  not 
inconsistent  with  his  attitude  toward  Lord  Herbert 
at  other  times,  whose  power  and  position  he,  of 
necessity,  courted  (Sonnet  XLI) ;  at  this  time  he 
expressed  his  anger.  Lord  Herbert's  connection 
with  her  attitude  toward  Sir  William  is  probable,  as 
Sir  William's  position  appears  to  have  improved 
during  the  future  Earl's  absence  from  Court  from 


i8o  ^f)akiptavt*i  ^onmti 

November,  1599,  to  March,  1600.  If  this  view  of 
the  sonnet  is  taken  as  accurate,  there  must  have 
been  such  a  degree  of  "faith"  estabhshed  between 
Mary  and  Sir  WilHam  as  early  as  1599,  or  perhaps 
a  Httle  earHer,  as  to  give  a  basis  for  Shakspeare's 
charge  of  breach  of  faith,  and  this  condition  of 
"faith"  seems  to  have  existed,  according  to  the 
passages  from  Sir  WilHam 's  letters  given  below. 
The  elements  do  not  exist  for  precisely  dating  the 
sonnet  within  a  number  of  months ;  the  earlier  part 
of  1599  seems  to  be  the  more  probable  time  for  it. 
A  paraphrase  of  the  third  and  fourth  lines  of  the 
sonnet  would,  upon  this  theory  of  them,  be :  Thy 
bed-vow  to  thy  still  contracted  husband  broken  in 
act,  and  thy  new  faith  to  old  Sir  William  torn, 
torn  in  vowing  to  me  a  renewal  of  thy  hate  of  him, 
and  after  bearing  to  him  thy  new  love. 

It  is  true  that  Sir  William  does  not,  in  his  letters, 
assert  in  terms  any  contract  entered  into  by  the 
young  lady  in  respect  to  him,  but  it  is  not  probable, 
on  the  other  hand,  that  the  engagement  either  was, 
or  could  be,  anything  but  a  loose  pledge,  subjecting 
him  to  the  anxiety  which  he  seems  throughout  to 
have  felt,  according  to  his  letters,  and  also  it  is  not 
likely,  in  view  of  his  position  as  a  married  man, 
that  he  would  be  explicit  on  paper  as  to  the  terms 
of  his  engagement.     As  to  what  he  does  write. 


^fjafegpeare'g  ^ottneW  i8i 

which  is  more  than  frank  as  to  his  wishes,  he  refers 
to  the  advisabiHty  of  "crying  silence,"  and  in  a 
letter  written  in  a  moment  of  happiness,  he  ex- 
presses a  preference  for  oral  communications.  In 
the  last  of  his  letters  quoted  in  this  Note,  an  under- 
standing, such  as  it  was,  seems  to  be  unmistakably 
implied,  and  as  clearly  as  was  allowed  by  his  un- 
certain position,  especially  the  words,  "but  both 
she  and  I  must  have  patience,  and  that  will  bring 
peace  at  the  last."  The  whole  correspondence  of 
agitations  and  fears  should  be  studied,  particularly 
Sir  William's  attitude  of  hesitation  and  the  lady's 
coolness,  even  after  the  catastrophe,  and  also  his 
last  words,  "but  I  am  pleased  since  she  will  have 
it  so." 

It  cannot  be  doubted  that  there  is  at  least  some 
reason  for  the  prevalent  impression,  as  it  appears 
in  the  books,  that  the  "Dark  Lady"  was  Mary 
Fytton.  If,  by  the  light  of  what  little  information 
we  have,  we  can  so  interpret  the  phrases  of  the 
sonnet  as  to  produce  an  exact  and  well-supported 
explanation  of  them,  we  have  done  all  that  can  be 
done  in  a  complex  of  courtship  which  is  now  so 
remote,  and  which  was  probably,  even  at  the  time, 
fully  understood  by  very  few  people. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  Lord  Herbert  was 
for  less  than  three  years  at  the  Court  of  Queen 


1 82  ^Ijafejfpeare'js  bonnets! 

Elizabeth,  and  although  he  may  have  had  in  that 
time,  besides  his  affair  with  Mary  Fytton,  another 
with  an  unknown  lady,  one  in  which  he  displaced 
Shakspeare,  and  which  is  recorded  in  the  sonnets, 
the  general  probabilities  are  much  against  such  a 
display  of  energy,  and  it  would  take  some  evidence 
to  establish  it,  evidence  which  is  not  at  all  forth- 
coming. There  is  evidence  of  one  lady  who 
pursued  Lord  Herbert,  and  was  pursued  by  him, 
during  that  time,  and  if  Mary  Fytton,  who  was  that 
lady,  can  be  connected,  as  she  appears  somewhat 
to  be,  with  the  lady  of  the  sonnets,  the  probability 
that  Lord  Herbert  and  Mary  Fytton  are  the  two 
leading  persons  mentioned  by  Shakspeare  in  the 
"Dark  Lady"  sonnets  is  certainly  very  decided. 


THE  FYTTON  LETTERS 

A  point  still  remains  which  has  been  already  al- 
luded to  and  is  of  some  weight,  based  upon  the 
cotemporary  correspondence  in  the  Fytton  Letters. 
Mistress  Mary  Fytton,  on  first  arriving  at  Court 
as  a  young  Maid  of  Honour,  she  was  then  seven- 


^ijafejjpeare's!  ^onnetjs  183 

teen  years  old,  was  provided  with  a  powerful 
friend  there.  Sir  William  KnoUys,  a  friend  of  her 
father's,  seems  to  have  undertaken  to  advise  and 
watch  over  her,  promising  his  sword  in  her  defense ; 
he  was  prominent  at  the  Court,  a  cousin  once  re- 
moved of  the  Queen's  on  her  mother's  side,  uncle 
to  the  Earl  of  Essex,  joint  Lieutenant  of  Oxford- 
shire and  Berkshire  in  which  counties  he  had  pos- 
sessions, and  at  that  time  the  incumbent  of  the 
office  of  Comptroller  of  the  Royal  Household,  later 
on  its  Treasurer,  at  last  becoming  Earl  of  Banbury. 
Sir  William  was  fifty  years  old  and  over  when  he 
offered  his  services  in  Mary's  behalf,  and  also  a 
married  man;  his  wife  was  Dorothy,  widow  of 
Edmund  Brydges,  Lord  Chandos,  an  heiress,  and 
older  even  than  Sir  William.  His  advisory  office 
toward  the  young  lady,  however,  was  changed  into 
a  persevering  love-suit  to  her,  limited  as  it  was  by 
the  continued  existence  of  his  wife,  and  he  con- 
fided his  passion  to  Mary's  sister,  in  a  series  of 
letters,  undated  but  paralleling  Mary's  career,  and 
which,  from  the  unusual  circumstances  in  which 
they  were  written,  and  their  bearing  upon  the 
controversy  as  to  Mary  Fytton,  are  highly  interest- 
ing. The  sister  was  Anne,  Mrs.  Newdigate,  of 
whose  husband  Sir  William  was  a  connection.  As 
having  a  wife  of  his  own,  his  letters  are,  for  the 


1 84  ^fjafeJ^peare'jf  ^onnete 

most  part,  rather  general  than  specific,  and  even 
to  this  correspondent,  Mary's  sister,  he  is  silent, 
at  least  in  his  correspondence,  as  to  his  definite 
proposals,  the  extent  of  their  acceptance,  and  their 
appropriate  provisos  and  limitations.  He  writes 
in  one  of  the  earlier  letters: 

Honorable  La.  As  God  hath  blessed  you  with  en- 
crease,  so  blessed  be  you  ever  &  ffreed  ffrom  all  dys- 
contents,  &  though  myself  can  not  but  be  now  uppon 
the  stage  &  playe  hys  part  who  ys  [is]  cloyed  with  to 
much  &  yeat  readye  to  starve  ffor  hunger.  My  eyes 
see  what  I  can  not  attayne  to,  my  eares  heare  what  I 
doe  scant  beleve,  &  my  thoughtes  are  caryed  with  con- 
trarye  cortceipts.  My  hopes  are  myxt  with  dispayre  & 
my  desyres  starved  with  expectation,  but  wear  [were] 
my  enjoying  assured,  I  could  willinglye  endure  purga- 
torye  ffor  a  season  to  purchase  my  heaven  at  the  last. 
But  the  short  warning,  the  distemperature  off  my  head 
by  reason  off  the  toothake,  &  your  syster's  going  to  bed 
without  bydding  me  godnight,  will  joyne  in  one  to  be 
a  meanes  that  ffor  this  tyme  I  will  onlye  troble  you  with 
these  ffew  lynes  skribled  in  hast,  and  wishing  you  all 
happynes,  a  good  delyverye  off  your  burden,  and  your 
syster  in  the  same  case  justiffyable,  I  leave  you  to 
God's  good  protectyon,  myself  to  your  dearest  syster's 
true  love,  &  hyr  [her]  to  a  constant  resolution  to  love 
hym  onlye  who  cannot  but  ever  love  hyr  best,  and  thus 
with  my  best  salutations  I  will  ever  remayne 
Your  most  assured  ffrend, 

I  would  fayne  saye  brother, 

W.  Knollys. 


^fjafesipeare'ji  ^onneW  185 

The  phrases  "your  sister  in  the  same  case  justi- 
fiable," plainly  referring  to  Mrs.  Newdigate's  ex- 
pected maternity,  and  afterwards,  "to  love  him 
only,"  as  also,  "my  ears  hear  what  I  do  scant  be- 
lieve, and  my  thoughts  are  carried  with  contrary 
conceits,"  are  worth  considerable  attention,  as 
they  were  evidently  written  early  in  1598,  the 
year  when,  probably  in  June,  Lord  Herbert  came 
first  to  the  Court.  {Hist.  MSS.  Com.,  Salis.,  Part 
8,  p.  219.)  Mrs.  Newdigate's  eldest  daughter 
and  first  child  was  born  May  7,  1598.  None  other 
was  born  until  1600,  and  in  the  interval  letters, 
evidently  later  in  the  series,  were  written.  The 
third  letter  here  quoted,  that  referring  to  the  suc- 
ceeding baptism  of  Mrs.  Newdigate's  eldest  child 
and  daughter,  was  written  probably  in  May  or 
June,  1598.  If  the  letter  containing  the  phrases 
quoted  really  precedes  the  third  letter  in  date,  as 
it  precedes  it  in  the  order  in  which  the  letters  are 
published  in  the  Fytton  Letters,  and  it  appears  on 
all  accounts  to  be  in  its  proper  place  there,  it  refers 
to  occurrences  not  connected  with  Lord  Herbert. 
The  reader  may  compare  with  these  expressions 
of  Sir  William's,  other  expressions  in  sonnets  be- 
lieved by  us  to  have  been  written  late  in  1598  and 
in  1599,  CXII  and  CXIX,  and  addressed  to  Lord 
Southampton  after  his  return  from  France.    The 


1 86  ^f)afes;pearc*£{  ^onnetji 

point  has  a  considerable  bearing  upon  the  question 
at  issue  in  this  Note.  Perhaps  the  safe  deduction 
from  this  evidence,  and  one  more  cautious,  if  we 
join  to  it  Shakspeare's  condemnation:  "The  more 
I  hear  and  see  just  cause  of  hate,"  CL,  lo,  is  that 
Mary  was  unusually  given  to  questionable  and 
reckless  flirtation,  but  the  evidence  in  any  case 
accords  with  Shakspeare's  criticism  of  the  "Dark 
Lady."  Sir  William's  allusion  to  the  stage  has  a 
curious  aptness  for  the  theory  that  Mary  had  been 
attracted  by  one  of  the  comedians,  as  his  words 
were  written  before  Lord  Herbert  arrived  at  the 
Court,  and  before  the  poet's  interest  in  the  lady 
could  have  been  interfered  with  by  that  nobleman. 
The  lady's  perhaps  abrupt  departure  for  the  night, 
without  bidding  good-night  to  her  quasi  guardian 
and  admirer,  will  recall  to  the  reader  the  old 
"hate,"  or  dislike,  implied  in  Sonnet  CLII,  4. 
Mary's  power  as  an  enchantress  seems  to  be  plain. 
"Short  warning"  perhaps  refers  to  a  chance  con- 
veyer of  the  missive.  A  following  letter,  as  they 
succeed  each  other  among  the  Fytton  Letters,  is, 
the  spelling  being,  for  readier  reading,  altered  into 
that  of  the  present  day: 

Honorable  sister  (I  cannot  choose  but  call  you  so; 
because  I  desire  nothing  more  than  to  have  it  so) : 
Your  fair   written   letter,  and  more  fairly  indited, 


^fjafegpeare's!  ^onnetjS  187 

I  have  received  and  read  more  than  once  or  twice, 
seeking  to  find  there   which   so  much   you   endea- 
vour to  put  me  in  hope  of.     It  is  true  that  Win- 
ter's  cold   is   the   murderer   of   all   good   fruits,    in 
which  climate  I  dwell,  and  do  account  it  as  a  pur- 
gatory allotted  to  me  for  my  many  offences  com- 
mitted against   the   Highest,   the  rather  because   I 
am  more  observant  and  devoted  unto  his  creature 
than  to  himself,  from  which  to  be  delivered,  since 
there  is  no  means  but  the  devout  prayers  and  ori- 
sons of  my  good  friends,  let  me  entreat  your  fair  self 
to  pierce  the  heavens  with  your  earnest  and  best 
prayers  to  the  Eff ecter  and  Worker  of  all  things  for  my 
delivery,  and  that  once  I  may  be  so  happy  as  to  feel 
the  pleasing  comfort  of  a  delightful  Summer,  which  I 
doubt  not  will  yield  me  the  deserved  fruit  of  my  con- 
stant desires,  which  as  yet  no  sooner  bud  by  the  heat 
of  the  morning  sun  but  they  are  blasted  by  an  untimely 
frost,  so  as  in  the  midst  of  my  best  comforts  I  see 
nothing  but  dark  despair.     I  could  complain  of  For- 
tune which  led  me  blindly  into  this  barren  desert 
where  I  am  ready  to  starve  for  want  of  my  desired 
food,  and  of  myself  that  would  suffer  my  reason  to  be 
betrayed  by  my  will  in  following  so  bHnd  a  guide.    But 
to  all  my  wounds  I  will  apply  your  plaster,  which  is 
patience,  a  virtue  I  must  needs  confess,  but  having  in  a 
sort  lost  her  force  because  it  is  forced.     Continue,  I 
earnestly  entreat  you,  your  prayer  for  my  delivery, 
and  your  best  means  for  my  obtaining  that  without 
the  which  I  am  not  myself,  having  already  given  my 
best  part  to  one  whose  I  am  more  than  mine  own.    But 
I  must  cry  silence,  lest  I  speak  too  loud,  committing 
this  secret  only  to  yourself,  to  whom  as  I  wish  all 


1 88  ^f)afe£;peare'£f  ^onmti 

happiness  and  your  own  heart's  desire,  so  I  will  ever 
remain 

Your  most  affectionate  brother, 

W.    KnOWLESS    than    I    WOULD. 

It  seems  that  Mary  had  fairly  fascinated  her 
elderly  suitor;  the  "Winter's  cold"  was  doubtless 
the  lady's  coldness  rather  than  his  existing  mar- 
riage, and  the  "frost"  was  a  part  of  the  same 
climatic  misfortune.  In  his  last  sentence  the  suitor 
seems  to  be  impressed  by  the  necessity  of  keeping 
a  certain  degree  of  silence,  considering  his  already 
married  state,  while  his  correspondent  decidedly 
encouraged  him  in  his  suit.  The  words  "dark 
despair"  seem  to  refer  to  alternations  of  favour  and 
chilliness,  and  the  witticism  of  his  signature  is  not 
equalled  every  day. 

Sir  William  became  godfather  to  Anne  Newdi- 
gate's  first  child  in  1598,  and  was  represented  at  the 
ceremony  of  baptism  by  Sir  Christopher  Blount, 
his  brother-in-law,  Sir  William  being  not  present 
in  person.    He  writes  in  his  letter  of  acceptance : 

.  .  .  but  such  is  my  bondage  to  this  place  as  I 
have  neither  liberty  to  please  myself  nor  satisfy  my 
good  friends'  expectation,  amongst  which  I  must 
account  you  in  the  foremost  rank,  as  well  for  your  own 
worthiness  as  for  being  so  nearly  united  both  in  nature 
and  love  to  those  which  I  honour  much,  and  who  may 


^|)afegpearc*si  ^onnctsi  189 

more  command  me  than  all  the  world  besides.  But 
my  thoughts  of  that  party  I  will  leave  to  be  discovered, 
not  by  this  base  means  of  pen  and  paper,  but  by  myself. 
Accept,  I  pray  you,  of  my  lawful  excuse  for  not  coming 
myself,  assuring  you  that  I  will  be  ever  ready  to  per- 
form any  friendly  duty  to  you;  I  have  entreated  my 
brother.  Blunt,  to  supply  my  place  in  making  your 
little  one  a  Christian  soul,  and  give  it  what  name  it 
shall  please  you.  Imagine  what  name  I  love  best,  and 
that  do  I  nominate,  but  refer  the  choice  to  yourself, 
and  if  I  might  be  as  happy  to'be  a  father  as  a  godfather 
I  would  think  myself  exceeding  rich,  but  that  will 
never  be  until  one  of  your  own  tribe  be  a  party  player. 


The  position  of  Sir  William  in  his  love-suit  was 
most  difficult,  as  he  was  not  able  to  propose  a 
present  marriage.  His  words  and  his  manner  in 
writing  of  Mary  in  this  letter  are  those  of  an 
encouraged  though  but  a  prospective  lover;  he 
doubtless  thought  that  he  could  arrive  at  an  under- 
standing which  perhaps  became  established,  so  far 
as,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  any  certain  assurance 
was  possible,  between  this  and  the  succeeding  letter, 
written  much  later,  perhaps  a  year  and  a  half,  or 
nearly  so.  The  child,  in  accordance  with  Sir 
William's  wish,  and  no  doubt  with  Mrs.  Newdi- 
gate's  wish,  was  named  Mary;  he  also  advised 
Mrs.  Newdigate  as  to  the  proper  manner  of  the 
nursing  of  her  child.     He  therefore  seems  to  have 


190  ^fjafejfpcare's!  ^onmin 

stood  at  this  time  on  decidedly  intimate  terms  with 
the  family.  Notwithstanding  this  tendency  to 
closer  relations,  however,  and  his  tentative  suc- 
cess, which  seems  to  have  been  allowed  by  the 
lady's  family,  and  although  he  may  have  confided 
to  them  some  sort  of  acceptance  of  his  proposals, 
still  the  lady  would  not  have  readily  given  an  un- 
qualified acceptance,  which  would  have  at  once 
limited  and  compromised  her,  and  it  is  probable 
therefore  that  no  positive  letter  to  that  effect  was 
ever  written  by  him.  The  succeeding  letter  con- 
tains a  reference  to  his  nephew,  the  Earl  of  Essex, 
and  his  political  overthrow : 

Fair  Gossip,  I  must  crave  pardon  for  my  so  long 
silence,  not  grown  by  a  negligent  forgetfulness  of  so 
good  a  friend,  but  forced  by  a  distraction  I  have  had 
concerning  the  Noble  Earl  of  Essex,  which  hath  made 
me  careless  to  satisfy  myself  or  my  friends.  I  leave 
to  you  to  imagine  the  discomforts  I  take  hereof,  when 
your  sister  is  fain  to  blame  me  for  my  melancholy  and 
small  respect  of  her  who,  when  I  am  myself,  is  the  only 
comfort  of  my  heart.  She  is  now  well,  and  hath  not 
been  troubled  with  the  mother  [hysteria]  of  a  long 
time.  I  would  God  I  might  as  lawfully  make  her  a 
mother  as  you  are;  I  would  be  near  both  at  Arbury  to 
shun  the  many  griefs  which  this  place  affordeth,  and 
she  should  enjoy  the  company  of  the  most  loving  and 
kind  sister  that  ever  I  knew.  My  heart  is  so  full  of 
sorrow  at  this  time  for  my  Lord  of  Essex  being  danger- 
ously sick  before  his  restraint  as  I  am  scant  myself.  .  . 


^f)afe)Efpeare*s;  ^otmetsi  191 

The  letter  shows  Mary  at  this  time  requiring 
"respect"  or  attentions  from  Sir  William,  who 
thinks  her  "the  only  comfort  of  my  heart,"  and 
it  can  be  surely  inferred  that  that  anomalous  re- 
lation toward  her,  a  quasi  acceptance  as  a  suitor 
was  established,  and  had  continued  for  some  length 
of  time.  He  was  a  conquest  worth  retaining,  and 
still  had  no  claim  on  her.  Possibly  she  had  found 
more  security  with  Lord  Herbert  by  favouring 
Sir  William.  When  this  letter  was  written.  Lord 
Herbert  had  just  left,  or  was  about  to  leave,  the 
Court.  As  the  Earl  of  Essex'  illness  under  his 
censure  and  detention  began  in  October,  1599 
{Sidney  Papers,  Whyte  to  Sidney,  Oct.  25  and  Nov, 
4>  1599).  he  even  proposing  to  make  his  Will,  the 
letter  was  written  probably  not  very  long  after- 
wards. Lord  Herbert  left  the  Court  November 
29,  1599,  remaining  away  for  three  months  and 
more.  Sir  William's  commendation  of  Anne  as  a 
loving  and  kind  sister  is  in  keeping  with  what  ap- 
pears of  her  in  respect  to  Mary  later  in  life,  and  his 
reference  to  hysteria  will  be  noted,  in  this  con- 
nection, with  due  appreciation.  The  allusion  to  his 
nearness  to  Arbury  refers,  of  course,  to  his  lands 
in  Oxfordshire  and  Berkshire,  of  which  counties 
he  was  then  joint  Lieutenant,  and  later  on  Lord 
Lieutenant.    He  writes  again : 


192  B>H'k&ptavt*9i  bonnets! 

,  .  .  The  best  news  I  can  send  you  is  that  your 
sister  is  in  good  health  and  going  to  the  Court  within 
two  or  three  days,  though  I  think  she  could  be  better 
pleased  to  be  with  her  best  sister  upon  some  conditions. 
Her  greatest  fear  is  that  while  the  grass  groweth  the 
horse  may  starve,  and  she  thinketh  a  bird  in  the  bush 
is  worth  two  in  the  hand,  [sic]  But  both  she  and  I 
must  have  patience,  and  that  will  bring  peace  at  the 
last.  Thus,  in  some  haste,  with  my  best  salutations 
to  yourself,  and  my  kindest  blessing  to  my  daughter, 
I  wish  you  your  heart's  desire,  and  will  remain  ever 
Your  faithful  friend  and  gossip 

W.  Knollys. 


The  references  in  this  letter  to  a  more  or  less 
complete  understanding  between  Sir  William  and 
Mary  are  quite  unmistakable.  The  inversion  of 
the  proverb,  "A  bird  in  the  hand,"  etc.,  is  notable, 
and  much  as  if  Mary's  chase  after  a  difficult  prize, 
it  may  be  thought.  Lord  Herbert,  had  been  ob- 
served by  Sir  William  and  bluntly  commented  on. 
She  maintained  this  pursuit,  or  so  Sir  William  sus- 
pected, notwithstanding  her  acceptance  of  him. 
The  reader  will  compare,  as  to  Mary's  attitude  in 
this  matter.  Sonnet  CXLIII;  the  parallel  is,  to  say 
the  least  of  it,  striking,  for  the  resemblance  of  the 
simile  in  the  sonnet  and  in  the  letter  suggests  with 
much  probability  that  it  may  have  been  common 
in  the  current  talk  of  the  time.    The  "feathered 


creature"  is  Lord  Herbert,  as  we  think.    Lord  Her- 
bert, when  this  letter  was  written,  was  most  prob- 
ably on  the  eve  of  returning  to  Court.    The  letter 
and  the  sonnet  are  not  cotemporary ;  the  sonnet 
probably  preceded  the  letter  by  a  little  over  a  year. 
The  proverb  as  to  the  grass  growing,  with  the 
words,  "Her  greatest  fear,"  refer,  of  course,  to 
Sir  WilHam's  existing  marriage,  and  Mary's  hesi- 
tation  as  to  committing   her  prospects  in  that 
uncertain  direction.    The  proverb,  it  will  be  remem- 
bered, is  mentioned  by  Hamlet  (HI,  ii,  358)-     So 
also,  by  the  way,  Ophelia  mentions  pansies,  the 
Fyttons'  flower,  "that's  for  thoughts,"  the  next 
words  being,  "A  document  [instruction]  in  mad- 
ness; thoughts  and  remembrance  fitted,"  the  rose- 
mary being  for  remembrance  (IV,  v,  176).     The 
word  "fitted"  has  a  strange  pertinence  here,  if 
this  theory  is  true.    Sir  WilHam's  anxious  sentence, 
"But  both  she  and  I  must  have  patience,"  etc., 
implies,  beyond  a  doubt,  that  an  understanding  in 
some  degree  had  arisen  between  them,  and  that  the 
delay  worried  him.    The  letter  speaks  of  her  return 
to  Court  as  about  to  happen,  which  dates  it  almost 
certainly  after  February  21,  1600,  near  which  date 
Lady  Sidney  paid  her  a  visit  during  her  illness  in 
London,  as  has  been  noted  earlier  in  this  abstract. 
Sir  William  also  seems  to  have  known  of  this  lU- 


13 


194  ^fjafesipcare'g  bonnets! 

ness,  and  to  have  been  more  or  less  present ;  it  was 
perhaps  not  very  severe.  This  would  date  the 
letter  during  Lord  Herbert's  absence  from  Court, 
and  that  young  nobleman's  illness,  when  Sir 
William's  suit  might  advance,  as  the  letter  sug- 
gests that  it  had,  and  when  Mary  seems  to  have 
been  well  enough  to  receive  him,  although  she  had 
felt  compelled  by  it  to  leave  the  Court.  The  under- 
standing, however,  seems  to  still  date  back  far 
enough,  when  the  letter  next  preceding  this  is  also 
read,  to  account  for  one  of  the  two  broken  pledges 
of  Sonnet  CLII.  The  letter  now  commented  on, 
from  the  allusion  to  his  god-daughter,  was  prob- 
ably written  before  the  birth  of  Anne's  second 
child,  May  27,  1600,  while  the  expectation  of 
Mary's  return  to  Court,  mentioned  in  the  letter, 
probably  places  it  rather  earlier  than  May.  We 
can  date  the  letter,  most  probably,  in  early  March, 
1600.  There  are  also  two  letters  by  Sir  William 
doubting  his  success,  and  one  evincing  a  degree  of 
distress ;  the  allusion  to  them  is  all  that  is  necessary 
here. 

How  exact  seems  to  be  Shakspeare's  reference  to 
him  in  these  lines: 

Whoever  hath  her  wish,  thou  hast  thy  "Will," 
And  "Will"  to  boot,  and  "Will"  in  overplus; 

Sonnet  CXXXV,  i. 


^^afesJpearc's!  ^ormcti  195 

The  elderly  Sir  William  might  well  be  called  a 
surplusage  among  Mary's  lovers.  In  an  article 
which  appeared  in  the  Fortnightly  Review  imme- 
diately after  the  publication  of  the  Fytton  Letters 
(Mr.  William  Archer  in  The  Case  against  South- 
ampton, December,  1897,  p.  819),  this  evidence 
was  considered  as  almost  conclusive  that  the  third 
"William"  of  the  sonnet  "appears  manifestly  in 
the  person  of  Sir  William  himself,"  and  it  appears 
to  us  also  as  though  the  point  were  a  very  strong 
one.  The  allusion  exactly  suits  him,  and  as  there 
are  three  men  named  William  mentioned  in  the 
sonnet,  this  Sir  William  supplies  the  third,  the 
other  two  being  Lord  William  Herbert  and  William 
Shakspeare,  a  solution  which  would  quiet  not  a  few 
doubts  as  to  the  persons  referred  to  in  these  sonnets 
if  it  could  be  admitted  as  conclusive. 

There  is  also  the  even  stronger  point  that  Shaks- 
peare and  the  dedicatee  of  Sonnets  XXXV,  XL, 
and  other  sonnets  of  the  sort,  were  lovers  of  the 
same  lady,  and  if  Lord  Herbert  is  accepted  as  the 
dedicatee  of  those  sonnets,  the  indications,  es- 
pecially from  his  character  and  the  character  and 
probable  date  of  those  sonnets,  much  favour- 
ing that  dedication,  it  is  all  but  inevitable 
that  Mary  Fytton  was  the  lady,  there  being 
no  doubt  as  to  his  relation  to  her.    Their  relation, 


196  ^fjafesfpeare'g  bonnets; 

and  the  central  date,  1599,  established  by  The 
Passionate  Pilgrim,  together  with  the  other  frag- 
mentary evidence,  here  noted,  go  very  far  to  estab- 
lishing them  as  two  of  the  personages  in  the  drama 
of  Shakspeare's  sonnets.  If  Lord  Herbert  is  ac- 
cepted, Mary  Fytton  must  almost  certainly  be 
accepted  also,  and,  if  the  lady  is  accepted,  so  must 
Lord  Herbert  with  her. 

Further,  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  there  is  an 
intrinsic  likeness  between  the  passage  from  Love's 
Labour's  Lost  (IV,  iii,  258),  added  for  Court  per- 
formance, probably  in  1597,  and  Sonnet  CXXVII 
and  their  concurrence  in  date  is  certainly  probable 
also.  Adding  to  this  indication  the  circumstance 
that  Mary  Fytton  was  then  at  the  Court,  and  the 
decided  resemblance  between  the  characters  of 
Rosaline,  of  the  ' '  Dark  Lady"  and  of  Mary  Fytton, 
and  also  the  probable  allusion  to  Mary's  name  in 
Sonnet  CLI,  the  probable  allusion  to  her  age  in 
the  version  in  The  Passionate  Pilgrim  of  Sonnet 
CXXXVIII,  and  the  markedly  probable  allusion 
to  her  matrimonial  engagements  in  Sonnet  CLII, 
also  the  similarity  of  the  characteristics  of  the 
"Dark  Lady"  of  the  sonnets  to  the  description,  as 
far  as  it  goes,  of  Mary  Fytton  in  the  letters  of  Sir 
William  Knollys,  the  nearly  certain  concurrence 
of  the  date  of  these  sonnets  with  the  date  of  Sir 


^l)afes;peare'£{  bonnets;  197 

William's  letters,  and  his  seeming  appearance 
twice  in  the  sonnets  (CXXXV,  CLII),  also  her 
certain  acquaintance  with  and  seemingly  observed 
pursuit  of  Lord  Herbert,  the  nearly  certain  con- 
currence of  the  date  of  the  "Dark  Lady"  sonnets 
with  the  time  of  that  acquaintance,  and  the  prob- 
able allusions  to  him  in  Sonnets  CXLIII,  XL,  XLI, 
CXXXIV  and  elsewhere,  we  have  a  chain  of  evi- 
dence which,  though  not  rising  to  strict  proof,  is 
still  so  consistent  as,  taken  together,  to  lead  us  to 
choose  Mary  Fytton  as  the  all  but  proved  original 
of  the  "Dark  Lady"  of  Shakspeare's  sonnets. 

The  tendency  of  the  evidence  is  toward  the  con- 
clusion that  Mary  Fytton,  Rosaline  and  the  Lady 
of  the  Sonnet,  Shakspeare's  love  and  Lord  Her- 
bert's rejected  mistress,  were  all  the  same  lady, 
and  it  is  clearly  more  probable  that  Mary  Fyt- 
ton was  the  original  of  the  ' '  Dark  Lady  "  than  that 
she  was  not.  The  reader  will  judge  for  himself,  on 
the  evidence,  which  is  not  inconsiderable,  whether 
this  uncontrollable  passion  of  the  great  poet's  was 
given  to  one  of  the  most  fascinating  and  forward 
ladies  of  the  Court,  or,  as  is  less  Hkely,  especially 
when  we  consider  the  description  which  is  given  of 
the  lady  in  the  sonnets,  to  some  lady  less  distin- 
guished or  unknown. 


^TURN  TO  Dil^"^^  USE 

^y   lU  DESK  FROM  WHirH  d^« 

-  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT 

Renewals  „,a,  b?ln±- f  l^T/os  ^^''^"^^  o-^^: 


t-iN8837sl0)476-l-A-32 


Tr„P^°^"^  library 

"■"""Kg"'"-'. 


IC,  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


CD3S3122flfl 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


i 


